The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing in light of the fact that there exists a unique area for sentencing determination in the appellate court, and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) In a case where the first instance sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

However, the above circumstances were already launched during the oral argument of the court below, and there was no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was made, the crime of this case is not very good, the fact that there was a history of being sentenced to suspended execution due to the same kind of crime, the victim's parent appears to have suffered serious slurry and psychological pain due to the victim's considerable loss, and the victim's parents continuously want to be punished against the defendant, and the victim's parents continuously want to take full account of the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the records and arguments, are too unreasonable.

Therefore, the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.