2. The court below determined that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, who is a domain of a broadcast program, and was in the position to direct and supervise the victims who were drunk after producing the same program, and thus, it seems that the nature of the crime was bad due to sexual intercourse with the victim under the influence of alcohol to a hotel, and that the victim suffered a huge mental pain due to the crime of this case and suffered a lot of difficulties in engaging in workplace life, and that the Defendant did not properly reflect his mistake while claiming it difficult for him to understand, the court below sentenced the defendant to the lowest punishment out of the applicable sentence, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, taking into account the fact that the defendant did not have any power to obtain any particular criminal punishment.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been appropriately determined taking into account the aforementioned various circumstances, and there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that could be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment (in light of the background and content of the instant crime, and the process of deliberation, etc., the circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been reflected in the sentencing conditions). Other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, criminal records, the background and outcome of the instant crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too heavy to the extent that the lower court’s punishment goes beyond 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.