2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the mistakes, and divided them, the fact that the health of the elderly and the student must support the baby, and the fact that such mistakes are not repeated in the future.

However, even though the Defendant had had had been punished for the same offense as the instant case at nine times from 1999 to 2010, the Defendant again committed the instant crime, and as seen earlier, the Defendant would not repeat such mistake again. However, the risk of recidivism is high when based on the Korean risk assessment scale (KSAS-G) against the Defendant, and it appears that the Defendant need to receive edification and technical treatment after isolation for a considerable period of time, rather than having the Defendant immediately return to society. In light of the terms and conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., it is appropriate that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is appropriate and its determination is unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.