2. The following circumstances are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime by confessioning the instant crime while committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency while drinking alcohol; (c) the degree of such indecent act appears to have been relatively minor; (d) the victim wanted the Defendant to take the Defendant’s wife up to the trial by agreement with the Defendant; (e) the Defendant has no criminal records of the same kind other than sentenced to a fine on four occasions due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc.; and (e) the Defendant has to support the Defendant who was born with his wife as a person with visual disability as a person with a disability of Grade VI.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the crime of this case is an indecent act committed by the Defendant by force after allowing the Defendant to drink to the victim, who is a juvenile, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the victim seems to have caused considerable sense of sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the crime of this case, and is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In light of the above various circumstances, there is no change in special circumstances that could vary in the sentence of the court below. In addition, in full view of the following conditions: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of crime, motive or circumstance of crime, method and method of crime, contents and result of crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.