2. There are no circumstances that may be considered as favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all the crimes of this case, and that the defendant knew of the fact that his father was living together with the victim while having a malicious appraisal against the victim, and it appears that the labor union was not transferred, and that it would have resulted in contingent crimes, etc.

However, even though the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for the same crime, it is highly likely that the defendant's crime of this case is committed again without any weight, and the value of the property damaged by the defendant is less than the value of the property.

In addition, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the background of the instant crime, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (b) the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and the previous theories, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion 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.