2. The lower court: (a) took into account favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant committed an indecent act against many unspecified female victims for a period of three months; (b) the Defendant committed an indecent act against them; (c) appears to have suffered sexual humiliation and mental suffering; (d) the victims’ trust in social safety were damaged; (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects it; (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal power; and (e) agreed with the victims; and (e) determined the Defendant’s punishment to be sentenced to imprisonment for three years, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the commission of the crime; and (e) various sentencing conditions as indicated in the trial, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

In full view of the conditions of sentencing and the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, rather than deeming that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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.