2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect the instant crime, and that the Defendant raises a minor’s child by mixed raising.

Meanwhile, in full view of the records and all of the sentencing factors in the trial process, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion or to be unfair because the Defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment several times due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseless driving), the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseless driving) on November 4, 2015.

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.