2. The instant crime is deemed to have committed an indecent act by the Defendant, who is his subordinate employee, and quasi-rape, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the victim appears to have been suffering from considerable mental pain and sexual humiliation due to the instant crime, and up to this court, the Defendant did not pay sufficient compensation to the victim, and did not receive the victim’s test, etc., which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of his criminal acts, and is in depth divided, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, and the defendant seems to have a relatively social ties, and the fact that his family members want to take the preference of the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, if 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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is not difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above 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.