2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant is the first offender, and his mistake is divided.

However, even though the amount of damage exceeds KRW 400 million, the damage was not recovered at all, the damage was not agreed with the victim, the nature of the crime in light of the form and method of the crime in this case, and there is no change of circumstances that can be determined differently from the original judgment in the first instance trial, and the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too large to be considered, and the sentence of the court below is not deemed unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is obvious that “objects” in the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the Defendant’s office, and “the person against whom a crime was committed” in the final and conclusive manner is a “office” and “the person against whom a crime was committed” in the judgment of the court below, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25(