2. The lower court, under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, has set a sentence (one year of imprisonment) by taking into account the following factors: (a) the extent of damage caused by each of the instant crimes is considerably large; (b) the damages have not been fully recovered until now; and (c) the records of punishment for the same kind of crime have been punished twice previously; and (d) other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee.

The grounds for the criminal defendant’s improper sentencing (a special larceny, a single criminal conviction, a previous conviction, a family member, a family member, etc.) alleged by the court below had already taken into account the circumstances or changes in the sentencing conditions in determining the punishment against the defendant.

The lower court’s sentence is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances to deem otherwise to be unfair to maintain the same as is, in light of the following: (a) the extent of damage, method of crime, and criminal record indicated in the records of the instant case; and (b) the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court is reasonable

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

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.