2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

Most of the damage of this case were returned to the victims, and it seems that there were almost no actual victims' damages.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is a repeated crime and the defendant who was under the surveillance period, and it is not good to commit the crime.

The Defendant, without being aware of the lower court and the trial court, committed a violation of regulations in prisons.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.