2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

It seems that there is no actual property damage caused by the crime of this case, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not likely to be committed during the period of repeated crime by a defendant who has served three times of punishment for multiple violent crimes.

The crime of this case is serious as it brings about a basic supply and demand passbook by joining the victim who is a basic recipient of supply and demand.

The defendant committed a violation of discipline without being aware of in the prison.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.