2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and that the victim and the legal representative of the victim do not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim and the legal representative, and that the defendant was the first offender who had no record of the crime of this case before the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the special quasi-rape of this case by having the victim, who was in a state of resistance impossible to resist after drinking together with B, committed the crime of quasi-rape of this case, and the responsibility for the crime is very heavy.

In particular, the fact that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the crime, and that the victim was sworn after recognizing the damage to the crime, and that the victim might have suffered a severe sexual humiliation and mental suffering, is also disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.