The punishment of the court below (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original judgment is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, the lower court: (a) took into account the following favorable circumstances: (b) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime; (d) the victim did not want to punish the Defendant; (d) the Defendant was a first offender with no criminal force; and (e) the Defendant also seems to have partly affected the occurrence of the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by rape of the victim with intellectual disability 3 while the Defendant was under the same room even if the Defendant was female-born, while the Defendant was refusing to commit the instant crime; (b) the instant crime was committed by rape of the victim with intellectual disability 3 while the Defendant was under the same room; (c) the nature of the relevant crime was not good; and (d) the victim appears to have caused considerable sexual humiliation and physical and mental pain; and (e) the victim appears to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and physical pain; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the Defendant after committing the instant crime.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Furthermore, the grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant in this court are the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account while determining the Defendant’s punishment, and furthermore, the lower court’s sentencing decision is maintained by comprehensively taking account of the materials presented during the sentencing hearing of this court.