아동ㆍ청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(성매수등)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment, and 80 hours of lectures to prevent sexual traffic) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing revealed in the sentencing hearing of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the primary sentencing factor as the sentencing factor, including the nature of the instant crime, the confession of the Defendant, the criminal records, and the Defendant’s social relative relation, which can be known in the difference between the Defendant’s family members, exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.
The judgment of the court below cannot be assessed, and there is no reason or material to see that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below in the course of the deliberation of the case, or that there is a lack of materials to see that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing of the court below (the fact that the defendant is also admitted to the charges of purchasing sex as a policeman in December 2015 when the defendant was in the first instance court). 3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act)