2. The Defendant’s crime did not cause damage to the Defendant’s attempted crime.

However, in order to prevent the outing victim from having his fingerprints left after being identified, the defendant had committed the crime planned by wearing locks, and there is a record that the method of crime is dangerous and punished four times for the same crime by intrusion upon his residence at night.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and consequences as shown in the records and pleadings, all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the commission of crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.