2. Determination is recognized as a favorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against his own will, that the amount of damage caused by the strong property is not less than the amount of tobacco 2 A, and that there was no record of punishment for a about 10 years since he was sentenced to imprisonment for the crime of indecent act by force by a minor around September 24, 2003.

However, in the case of the victim's head of a tree monel carried by the Defendant, the victim was satise and satise and satise, etc., and the crime was interviewed and the nature of the crime was inferior, and the victim was made obvious to significantly satise his head due to the Defendant's crime, and even though the victim suffered a big mental or physical pain due to the crime of this case, it is also recognized that the disadvantageous sentencing factors such as the victim's writing from the victim or did not reach the recovery of damage

Examining the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. comprehensively, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and is too unreasonable.

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 on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.