2. Under our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant has recognized and reflected each of the instant crimes, and that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine imposed on the Defendant, etc. is recognized.

On the other hand, the court below did not have any change in circumstances that could be considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below, in light of the motive, method, object, amount of damage, degree of damage recovery, etc. of each of the crimes in this case, and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes in this case, means and method, circumstances after the crime was committed, and all of the sentencing factors in the process of trial, including the records of this case and all of the circumstances after the crime were committed, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion or 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.