2. The judgment below seems to have sentenced the above punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the defendant committed a crime, the absence of the same kind of power, and the victim’s payment of reasonable consolation money and the victim did not want punishment) and unfavorable circumstances (the fact that the defendant suffered a large mental distress by force by force on three occasions).

In light of the aforementioned grounds for sentencing and the accused’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances revealed by the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of sentencing recommended by the Sentencing Committee (one month to one year), and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that the court below would change the sentence against the accused in the trial, even if considering the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel in the trial, such as that the Defendant has a frequent overseas business trip for export, the sentencing of the court below is appropriate, and is not deemed to have abused its discretionary power or exceeded its discretionary limit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.