2. The fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflected against the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case committed an act of purchasing female juveniles who are only 15 years of age (14 years of age at the time of the first crime) with mobile phone hosting through four times only, and is very bad in light of the course, contents, methods, frequency, etc. of the crime.

These crimes are likely to be criticized in that they are likely to have a serious adverse effect on the establishment of a proper and sound sexual culture in our society as well as the health growth of the counterpart juveniles.

On February 6, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of inducing minors and completed the enforcement of the sentence on November 12, 2014, and was under repeated crime at the time of the first crime of this case.

The crime of inducing a minor was committed by the defendant, which had sexual intercourse with the defendant, by inducing a female juvenile to stay in the telecom or a monthly room for a considerable period of time.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the first instance sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, and the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.