2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking into account the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s misjudgments and agreement with the victim, the Defendant’s previous convictions and one time, and the Defendant’s closure of a private teaching institute operated for 12 years after the instant case, but the degree of indecent act committed by the victim under the age of 15 is serious enough to cause the similarity act; the Defendant committed the instant crime; the Defendant, who is in a position to protect students from sexual crimes, committed the instant crime; the Defendant committed the instant crime; the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking charge of the victim’s chests or buckbucks; and eventually, the Defendant did not seem to have committed any contingent crime in light of the words and methods in the process of indecent act; the Defendant’s age does not seem to have committed any contingent crime in light of the instant crime; the Defendant received a considerable mental impulse due to the instant crime.

Considering the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal by the Defendant were most considered in the lower court’s sentencing process, and considering the following circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant’s family members want to have the Defendant’s wife, and that the Defendant’s funeral died from the Defendant’s illness in the trial, the lower court’s sentencing determined within the scope of advisory sentencing guidelines is too excessive, taking into account the following circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.