2. The judgment of the court below recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects the defendant's agreement with the victim, but it is acknowledged that the crime of this case was committed in violation of the victim's name and rape with the victim. The crime of this case was committed in violation of the quality of the crime, which increased the risk of the crime due to joint rape, and the victim's damage was aggravated due to a threat of the peace of residence, and all other factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is

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

However, the judgment below's three and five pages 4 and 5 "The former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 6995, Mar. 12, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply)" is "Article 4 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 5 (10) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)". The judgment below's amendment to the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 1156, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply) to each of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 16.).