Judgment

On the other hand, there is no previous conviction except for the defendant who has been punished by a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking). The fact that the defendant has recognized the crime of this case late later, and that the social relationship of the defendant is relatively obvious, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by rape of a victim who gets dead, and the liability for the crime of this case is heavy, and the victim appears to have suffered mental pain with considerable sexual humiliation, and the suicide was committed only three days after the occurrence of this case, and the victim's bereaved family members want to commit severe punishment, etc., are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the scope of sentencing guidelines set forth in the Supreme Court's sentencing guidelines (two to five years) / [the scope of punishment recommended by the Supreme Court] of the basic area of rape (two to half years) (two to five years) (one year and five years), and the basic area of the crime of rape (one year and five years) (one year and five years) (the person subject to special sentencing) (the person subject to special sentencing), it is not determined that the court below's punishment imposed on the defendant is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.