The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, at night, performed drinking at the main point operated by the victimized person at night while drinking alcohol with the victimized person, led to the suppression of the injured person by the completion of the crime and then led to an act of similar rape. In light of the circumstances and methods of the crime, the nature of the crime is inferior.

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she had been punished several times due to the fact that he/she obstructed business operations at the above main point in the past. Around June 30, 2017 and July 22, 2017, he/she was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months for a crime of interference with business operations of the victim, etc., and was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of two years for a period of suspension of the suspension of the execution of six months for the reason that he/she committed the instant

Although the victim appears to have suffered a considerable sexual humiliation due to the instant crime, there is no circumstance in which the Defendant could see that he/she has made a serious effort to recover from damage.

The Defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party until now.

However, there are some favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has suffered from the trial for the first time, and that the defendant has no criminal record exceeding the past record of sex offense or suspended execution.

In full view of the circumstances shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relationship, environment, etc. in the above circumstances, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no change in sentencing conditions to deem that maintaining the sentencing of the lower court is unfair.

Since the lower court’s sentence, which was sentenced to the lowest sentence of a punishment by law, is too unreasonable, the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is not acceptable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit.