A. The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

In light of various circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background of the crime of this case, the defendant's attitude before and after the crime of this case, which can be identified by the evidence of the judgment, the court below held that the defendant was in a state of lacking ability to discern things or make decisions due to the main action, etc. at the time of the crime of this case.

The defendant and defense counsel's assertion were rejected on the ground that they were not available.

2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations by the defendant or his defense counsel, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, which affected the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The crime of this case’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is an indecent act committed by the Defendant’s victim, who is a hushel’s creshel’s creshes, by committing an indecent act in light of the content and circumstances of the crime.

In particular, on December 6, 2012, the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly under the same law during the period of probation, despite the fact that the Defendant committed an indecent act against the victim’s friendship (the age of 16 at that time) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 3 years, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 5 years.

The punishment prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes committed by the Defendant is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years, and since the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation and it is not possible to suspend the execution by law during the period of probation until now, the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness claim cannot be accepted, as seen earlier, the punishment imposed by the lower court constitutes the lowest sentence of punishment applicable to law.

2.2