2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant committed the crime of quasi-rape by having sexual intercourse with the victim by taking advantage of the state of mental disorder of the victim who is an ancient ties.

The Defendant’s crime of this case is a bad crime in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, the details and the method of the crime, etc.

The victim seems to have suffered considerable mental pain due to the crime of this case.

The victim did not recover from damage, and the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim.

In full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions, statutory punishment (limited to imprisonment of not less than three years) and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.