2. The facts that the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the Defendant’s mistake, that the Defendant is giving a certificate of alcohol existence, and each of the crimes of this case also commits these diseases, are considered in determining the sentence against the Defendant.

However, in light of the contents, details, and frequency of each of the instant crimes, and the number of victims, etc., the Defendant was sexually punished several times due to the same kind of crimes, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again during the period of repeated crimes of the same kind, and did not reach an agreement with the victims.

In addition to these circumstances, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, as well as various sentencing conditions shown in the proceedings, the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court (one year to nine years and seven months and five months), and the first and second concurrent crimes: Interference with Business (Scope of Recommendation) shall not be deemed unfair, taking into account the following factors: (a) interference with the business of each category 1 (Interference with Business) (the scope of Recommendation); (b) interference with the business of each of the special aggravation areas (one year to five years and three months); or (c) where each of the victims is committed for an unspecified number of unspecified, or repeatedly for a considerable period of time; (b) the final sentencing scope due to the aggravation of multiple repeated crimes of the same kind: one year to nine years.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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