2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment against the Defendant, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s erroneous recognition of the lower court; (b) the Defendant’s act of purchasing child or juvenile sex has been punished twice for a sex offense against the former child or juvenile; and (c) the Defendant had been punished three times for various sex offenses, including the fact that the Defendant was punished twice for a sex offense against the former child or juvenile; and (d) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was under execution of an order to attach an electronic tracking device, which was located in the place of sexual assault against the latter child or juvenile; (b) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. were considered as unfavorable to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was under execution of an order to attach an electronic tracking device, taking into account various sentencing conditions indicated in the trial after the crime.

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria of the sentencing expressed in the process of examining the sentencing of the court below, the sentencing of the court below is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed to be unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below.

The defendant's assertion is rejected.

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.