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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing are already revealed in the proceedings of the lower court’s pleadings, or the lower court appears to have sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendant’s punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant denied the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a minor under the age of 13) among the instant crimes, but recognized it in this court. However, it is difficult to view it as a change in circumstances

Considering the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, relationship with victims, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions and the scope of sentencing guidelines recommended by the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable as it takes place within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.