2. Determination: ① the Defendant discovered young female victims in the middle school, followed a considerable distance before a middle school, and committed a crime by planned and active means, such as obscenity, and driving away from the victims even after the commission of the crime; ② the victims appear to have suffered considerable mental impulse, but the Defendant failed to fully endeavor to recover from damage; ③ the Defendant had the record of having been punished two times prior to the instant crime, and in light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering equity between the case and the case where the Defendant was tried at the same time as the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which constitutes a latter concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing 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.