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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, determined a punishment by considering the following: (a) the Defendant had the history of having been punished twice as a single criminal act (a) and the degree of indecent act is not easy, in light of the following: (b) the Defendant had the disability of class 3 of intellectual disability; (c) there was no record of criminal punishment except for the same kind of force as to indecent act; and (d) the Defendant appears to have the attitude of confession and reflect on the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant has already been punished twice as a single criminal act

In addition to the above circumstances stated by the court below, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the court below in the court below, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it does not seem that the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too heavy to the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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.