2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant did not assault or threaten the victim in the instant crime; part of the instant crime is relatively weak in the degree of the indecent act; the Defendant recognized all the instant crimes and divided his mistake; and the Defendant also is a person with a delay in the 5th degree, etc. favorable to the Defendant.

However, even though the defendant had a record of suspended sentence due to sex crimes in 1998, the defendant committed an indecent act or indecent act by deceptive means, knowing well the fact that the victim who has long been placed in mind is unable to exercise his right to sexual self-determination due to intellectual disability.

Nevertheless, the Defendant denied the crime up to the judgment of the court below, and caused secondary damage to the victim by having the victim attend and state his opinion as a witness.

The victims and their families who were suffering from considerable mental impulses and sexual impulses due to the Defendant’s crime of this case wanted to punish the Defendant.

Until the trial of the court, the victim was not recovered from the damage, and the victim was not able to receive any remedy.

Considering these circumstances, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendant.

The lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account various circumstances emphasizing the Defendant’s sentencing, including various circumstances, and considering all of the sentencing conditions as indicated in the arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is so excessive that the Defendant would escape from the reasonable scope of discretion.