Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

The court below's improper order of employment restriction to the defendant is unfair.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the assertion on unfair sentencing by both parties, the lower court, under the unfavorable circumstances, determined a punishment by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s use of the victim’s state of being under the influence of alcohol, by putting the victim’s fingers in and committing similar rape; and (b) taken the victim’s face with a considerable sense of sexual shame and mental impulse; (c) the victim appears to have received a heavy sexual humiliation and mental impulse; (b) the victim wanted to commit the instant crime; (c) the Defendant recognized the instant crime under favorable circumstances; and (d) the first offender was the offender; and (e) the Defendant was the first offender; and (e) other various sentencing

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, etc., expressed in the hearing process of the lower court and the instant court, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too weak or unreasonable.

There is no substantial change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment.

The defendant and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing are without merit.

The defendant's age, power, risk of repeating a crime, circumstances and method of committing a crime, and the disadvantage of the defendant caused by the employment restriction order, which is acknowledged by considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's unfair argument of employment restriction order.