The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was aware of the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth while committing the instant crime; (b) there is no same criminal power; (c) the degree of indecent act is relatively minor; and (d) the victim was not punished by the Defendant by unanimous agreement with the victim.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court in relation to the determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the case where 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 (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In so doing, considering the following factors, including the fact that there is no special change in circumstances where the lower court should change the sentence after the sentence was rendered, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account all the factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and character, environment, motive, means and consequence

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