The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant acknowledges all of the crimes and seriously reflects his or her mistake.

The defendant has no record of criminal punishment until now with the young age of 20 years, and the health status is not good due to a new marology.

In the first instance, the defendant agreed with the victim, and the victim does not want to be punished against the defendant.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is a sexual target of the victim who is 12 years of age only by the defendant, by force and by force, and the crime is very bad and social criticism is also high in light of the object and method of the crime.

The crime of this case committed by the defendant shows that the victim suffered a sense of shame and mental impulses due to the crime of this case, and is likely to have a negative impact on creating sexual identity and values in the future.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, and the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is a punishment which falls under the lowest of the applicable sentencing range under the law, which has been sentenced to discretionary mitigation from the statutory penalty, and thus, an agreement has been reached between the victim and the victim in the trial.

In full view of the fact that there is no room for reduction of punishment, the sentence of the court below seems to be within the appropriate range of punishment corresponding to the defendant's liability, and it is not judged that the punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.