2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have been already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and the victimized person again submitted a written application to the Defendant that the victimized person wants to take the Defendant’s preference to the Defendant at the trial of the lower court, but the lower court, considering the favorable circumstances that the Defendant had already agreed with the victim, it is difficult to view this circumstance as a new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.