2. The judgment below held that the crime of this case was committed with the Defendant’s sexual harassment against the victimized child, who is the brue of the fluent child, who was the birth of the fluent child at a travel place along with the workplace rent, and the nature of the crime is not good, the victim seems to have been suffering from huge fear and fear at the time of the indecent act, the victim appears to have been suffering from a sense of shame, and the Defendant was unable to receive a mental therapy since then, due to unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect all of the crimes of this case, and was sentenced to a lower punishment than the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, given that there was no past record of criminal punishment against the Defendant.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy to the extent of deviating from the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.