2. The fact that the defendant is in profoundly against the defendant's crime, that the victim and his spouse, who is his father and wife, wished to take her wife against the defendant, and that despite this case, his family's ties relation seems to have been de facto, despite the fact that the defendant's ties relation to the defendant's family, the victim seems to have been significantly difficult to live due to the reduction of the defendant's ties, and that the defendant did not have any record of crime except a fine which is irrelevant to this case,

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant, who is in a position to protect and supervise victims who are relatives, has committed an indecent act continuously over a long-term period by taking advantage of his superior position that he is his father, and the degree of indecent act is too poor and highly likely to cause social criticism; and (b) the offender’s mental impulse and suffering seems to be very high; and (c) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the offense, and the recommended sentencing guidelines as indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family relationship, circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable compared to the Defendant’s responsibility, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. 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.