2. The judgment below held that the defendant could have been punished for the same and different crimes; each of the crimes of this case is a crime under the period of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and the possibility of recidivism seems to be high; considering the favorable circumstances that the defendant's mother victim does not want the punishment of the defendant; and taking into account the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the court below sentenced the punishment within the scope of the first offense (f-2 years) subject to the aggravated (f-6-2 years) of the sentencing guidelines set forth by the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court in consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in Article 51 of the Criminal Act; and sentenced to the mitigated punishment within the scope of the aggravated punishment [6-2 years] [1] subject to the aggravated punishment (a person subject to special mitigation) - a person subject to punishment; (2) the victim who is still in existence; and (3) the victim of the victim who is vulnerable to the crime [a person subject to recommendation] [a person subject to the punishment set forth in the preceding sentence] to the extent of imprisonment for six months or six months.

Since the sentencing of the lower court appears to be reasonable, and there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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