2. After committing the instant crime, there are circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished, and that the Defendant did not have any record of committing the crime similar to the instant case.

However, the crime of this case seems to have caused mental suffering, such as indecent act by compulsion, similar rape, or coercion, while the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to the crime of bodily injury, etc., and was living in prison, and the victim was forced to commit the crime of this case.

In addition, the criminal liability is not weak in that the defendant, who should be considered as an opportunity to return his past mistake to a sound social person through a prison life, rather than having the contents of his previous crime committed, is a tool to meet his sexual needs, and thus seriously disturbs the criminal order, and makes the purpose of the criminal sentence to return the victim to a sound social person through correction and edification.

In full view of the following circumstances, including these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s punishment is determined as appropriate punishment corresponding to its liability, and is so unreasonable and unfair as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, 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.