The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, there was no fact of injecting Silidine into D or E’s sexual sponsion.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court and the lower court, namely, D and E, injecting the Sildo lion into the sexual stampion.

(2) The Defendant also injected the Silvers from the investigation stage and into D and E’s sexual sponsion at the original trial.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated in the trial, and the Defendant denied the fact that he injected the Siidine into C and E’s sexual tag, but denies the fact that he added it into D and E’s sexual tag (the grounds of appeal by November 30, 2015), D and E’s sexual tag into the Siidine (the grounds of appeal by January 12, 2016). In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s statement is inconsistent, such as denying the fact that he injected the Siidine into D and E’s sexual tag, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant injecting the Siidine after being into D and E’s sexual tag, so the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant did not have the record of having been punished for the same offense, the Defendant’s crime of this case was denied part of the crime for the first time in the first instance, and the Defendant was in the same prison with respect to the procedure of sexual transformation against the people in the same prison, which is likely to cause serious harm to the health of those in the procedure, and other various circumstances, including the circumstances of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, are too heavy.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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.