2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, there are also circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime and showing the misunderstanding form to close and reflect in depth, the fact that there was no record of punishment prior to the instant crime, the fact that the instant crime was attempted even though it was committed, and the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim.

However, the crime of this case is about the attempted rape of a female living together by the defendant. In light of the background and method of the crime, the degree of the crime is poor in light of the victim's relationship, etc., the victim appears to have received a considerable sense of sexual shame and mental impulse due to the crime of this case, the defendant committed the crime of this case again without being aware of it during the suspended execution period due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Kidnapping, Inducement, etc.). The statutory punishment for the crime of attempted quasi-rape of this case is more than three years. The court below has been sentenced to statutory mitigation and repeated mitigation and mitigation, and the court below has sentenced one year more close to the lower limit of the applicable sentences (nine to seven years and six months), and the punishment of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., it is unreasonable to recognize that the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.