2. The Defendant, while denying his criminal act in the lower court, is recognized by the appellate court, and submits a rebuttal to this court.

In addition, new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court.

However, as the defendant denies the crime in the court below, the victim was present as a witness in the court of the court below and stated again and in detail his experience of sexual assault damage.

The court of original judgment, which directly heard the statement, directly admitted the credibility of the statement, found the defendant guilty of the facts charged against the defendant.

The victim had to undergo another mental pain in the process of the statement in the court, and such pain has not been provided with appropriate measures for healing, except that the victim, alone or together with his family, until this judgment is rendered.

There is still no use by the victim.

In consideration of these circumstances, the court below's sentencing conditions changed considerably compared to those of the court below on the sole basis of the defendant's aforementioned recognition of the crime and the submission of the reflective statement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of all the sentencing factors revealed even before the appellate trial, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy to the extent that it exceeds the reasonable discretion of the court.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The risk of re-offending is remarkably low, taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, occupation and environment, social relationship, details and consequence of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and the fact that there is no criminal history of punishment due to sex crimes.

In addition, by the employment restriction order, the degree and expected side effects of the defendant's disadvantage, and sexual crimes that can be achieved thereby.