2. There are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the first offender who has no record of punishment, the crime of this case itself appears to be somewhat contingent, and the attempted rape is committed.

However, in light of the content of the instant crime, it is inevitable to punish a serious punishment corresponding to the criminal liability in light of the following: (a) the instant crime was committed by a security guard who intrudes on a female toilet of a bus terminal used by many unspecified persons and tried to rape the victim; and (b) he was aware of the victim’s secret name; and (c) in light of the content of the crime and the method of the crime, the nature of the crime appears to have been light; (d) the victim was given considerable mental shock; and (e) the victim did not take any measures to recover from the victim’s secret; and (e) the victim was not provided with a letter of suspicion.

Furthermore, the statutory penalty for the crime committed by the Defendant is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years, and the sentence determined by the lower court is the choice of the lower court near the lower limit within the applicable sentencing range on the ground that the instant crime was committed after choosing a limited imprisonment among them, and thus, is deemed to have sufficiently taken into account the favorable circumstances as seen above. Moreover, even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’

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