2. In addition to a disposition of suspension of indictment for a special larceny and bodily injury against a juvenile under 16 years of age, the Defendant has no record of being subject to juvenile protective disposition or criminal punishment, and recognized the crime, thereby against the mistake, and did not repeat the crime.

The parent of the defendant also want the defendant's wife against the defendant.

However, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant by moving the victim under the influence of alcohol in the subway station into a public toilet, and the Defendant intended to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of an impossible state of resistance, and to photograph the victim's body. The victim's mobile phone chips and transportation cards were stolen so that the victim may not report, and there is a high possibility of criticism that the Defendant's responsibility is heavy in light of the motive, background, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

The victim, who is a juvenile, has suffered considerable physical and mental pain, such as taking back after committing the instant crime to the aftermath, and complained of difficulties in daily life due to mental shock even after committing the instant crime.

There was no measure to recover damage until the trial.

In addition to these circumstances, the court below’s punishment is too unfair even if the defendant is a juvenile, in light of the following: (a) no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the court below; and (b) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court; and (c) where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).