2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

The lower court appears to have determined a punishment by fully taking into account the various favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant (the repeated crime is a repeated crime, the same criminal record is heavy, and the victim is agreed upon). There is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, examining the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, such as the background and history of the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too heavy or unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below ex officio, and in the column for “Article 261 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment” applicable to the relevant criminal facts in the past, the “Article 260(1)” shall be corrected to add “Article 260(1)” to the following.

4. Conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeal filed by the Defendant