A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to shock disorder, etc.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the instant crime, method of the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, which are acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. There is a special change in circumstances to change the sentence of the court below, other than the circumstances (such as the fact that the court below has no previous conviction, most victims have agreed with the sentence, the fact that the damaged goods have been returned, the fact that there was a significant degree of impediment to shocking and shocking, etc.) or unfavorable circumstances (the fact that there was a past record of being punished twice for the same type of crime, and that there was a past record of being sentenced two-year imprisonment for the same crime on January 22, 2015, and that there was seven months after the sentence of two-year suspension of execution was sentenced to imprisonment for the same crime on June, 201, and that there was a new crime in this case

In light of other circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy in light of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, and circumstances after the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. 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.