2. The judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case; the defendant committed the crime of this case in favor of the defendant; the defendant did not have any criminal records of the same criminal records and suspension of execution or more; however, the amount of damage to the crime of this case is not significant; the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case; various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the crime of this case; and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee / [the scope of recommended punishment / [the scope of the recommended punishment ] mitigated area (special mitigation element / 8 months to 1 year and 6 months) of mitigation area (special mitigation element] outside the indoor residential space; and the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion in sentencing

In full view of the circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new material that was presented in the course of the trial of sentencing on the political party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court was inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act in the application of the statutes of the lower judgment on the grounds that “Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error in the form of “Article 364(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act” and thus, the rectification shall be made ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure.