2. There are no circumstances to consider the degree of deception, such as the recognition of the Defendant’s mistake and the fact that the Defendant has been consulted on the division of property.

However, the defendant did not completely recover from the damage, did not receive a true statement from the victim, and there is no significant change in circumstances in the past.

In full view of the fact that there was a record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the extent of damage is similar to that of the same kind of crime, as well as various circumstances that form conditions for sentencing, such as equity with the defendant's age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, the background leading to the crime of this case, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.