The defendant and his defense counsel stated that they withdraw misunderstanding of facts on the first trial date.

2. The lower court, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, determined a sentence against the Defendant by considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s criminal liability is considerably heavy in light of the method, background, and degree of the instant crime; (b) the victim’s sexual health and mental suffering due to the instant crime; (c) the victim’s sexual health and mental suffering was not received from the victim; (d) the victim was unable to receive a letter and did not recover from the damage; (e) the Defendant’s continued absence on the trial date of the lower court’s trial without justifiable grounds; and (e) the Defendant had a number of criminal records; and (e) the Defendant has committed several times, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant recognized all the instant crime; and (c)

The sentencing of the court below seems to have been determined appropriately by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below until the trial is held.

In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, the Defendant’s family members and persons who want to take a preference to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unreasonable to the extent that the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable to escape from the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.