2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the Defendant, and that some of the instant collateral security obligations are deemed to have been repaid by the Defendant.

However, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the Defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victim until the first instance court, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, cannot be deemed to be unfair because the

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 groundless.