2. The judgment is recognized that the defendant led to the confession that he/she committed the crime, and his/her mistake is repented, and that his/her sea-going vehicle is insured by the Financial Cooperative.

However, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment for a total of times; (b) the volume and degree of injury was significant; (c) the victim did not agree with the lower court; and (d) there was no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the Defendant’s age and punishment; and (e) there is no other reason to determine the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment; and (c)

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is obvious that the “proponed vehicle” of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the “Defendant’s Driving Vehicle”, it is corrected to correct it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.