2. The lower court, however, determined a punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and other factors of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the crime, etc., under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the Defendant purchased the sex of a minor, and that the act of purchasing the sex of a minor is bad, that the act of purchasing the sex of a child or juvenile is adversely affected not only by the formation of a sound sexual values, but also by establishing the sound sexual culture of our society, and that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects the Defendant’s criminal act; that the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment; that there was no record of criminal punishment other than the disposition of sending the juvenile protection case due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the court below in the court below, and considering various circumstances as seen earlier and all sentencing factors as seen in the argument of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion 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.