2. The crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the Defendant, as his father-child, was responsible for protecting and fostering the aged victims so that they can grow physically and mentally and physically, and form a sound sexual value, committed an indecent act against the victims several times in order to waive these obligations and resolve his sexual desire, and the nature of the crime is not very good, and the victim was suffering from considerable mental pain and sexual humiliation due to the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant fully acknowledges the crime and reflects his mistake in depth, the fact that the victim and the defendant agreed smoothly, and that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too unfasible (the victim was concealed on his own around May 31, 2017, which is after the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the prosecutor was dead of the victim, and thus, should be reflected in the sentencing of the Defendant.

According to the copy of the record of the case of change of the victim E, which was submitted to this court upon the request of the prosecutor, the victim committed suicide on May 31, 2017.