2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant had a criminal record of the same kind of law, he/she again committed the crime of this case, and he/she did not properly recover from the victims.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and various circumstances as the sentencing guidelines set forth in the instant records and arguments, including the following: (i) six months to one year and nine months; (ii) the scope of the recommended punishment based on the standards for the management of multiple offenses; (iii) six months to nine months; (iv) the Defendant’s age (which is relatively less than 20 years), environment, sex behavior; (iv) motive for committing the offense; and (v) the circumstances before and after committing the offense, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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.