The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: ① The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the Defendant; ② the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in violation of the Act on Rape and Punishment of Violences, etc. (hereinafter “instant confinement”) by failing to control a false appraisal against the victim; etc., which appears to be favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s crime of confinement in this case is a crime that uses a deadly weapon beyond a simple coercive method, ② appears to have a pipe of the victim’s severe mental impulse and sexual humiliation due to the rape crime in this case, ③ the fact that the Defendant has not yet received a letter from the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Other various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. The basic area of the crime of rape of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended sentence], the general criteria, and the first category (general rape of at least 13 years old): Imprisonment with prison labor for at least two years and six months to five years [the scope of the corrected recommended sentence]. The crime of rape of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, which did not set the sentencing guidelines, is a concurrent crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.), violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Operation) and violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Operation) and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, considering the majority of the sentencing guidelines, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3...