2. The lower court, as alleged by the Defendant, sentenced the above sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s confessioning of a crime, and the fact that the Defendant did not make efforts to recover damage, even if the commission to be paid after the victim was deducted from the fee to be paid after the victim, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not make efforts to recover damage.

In full view of the circumstances, other than the circumstances considered by the lower court, there is no change of circumstances in the lower court’s sentencing, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, background leading up to the commission of the offense, means and consequence, scale of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.