2. However, prior to the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times by a fine due to violent crimes, and that the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. is an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendant.

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, including the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, and that the crime of this case is against the defendant's recognition, while the defendant was trying to commit suicide, the defendant did not know the defendant's sexual organ part as a result of leaving the defendant, and there are circumstances to consider the defendant's sexual organ part as a result of preventing the crime, and that the mother of the defendant who is the victim wanted to take the defendant's front seat, the punishment sentenced by the court below is within the proper sentencing range.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, on May 29, 2009, the first head of the crime in the reasoning of the lower judgment was sentenced by the Seoul High Court for three years and six months of imprisonment for the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the parole period was expired on February 29, 2012, and the parole period was expired on May 13, 2012 during the execution of the sentence, and “The portion and the applicable statutes” 1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders is obvious to be each clerical error, and thus, the deletion of the sentence ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is corrected).