The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized the crime of quasi-rape of this case committed by himself and the crime of taking the body body of the victim and reflects his mistake in depth.

The defendant is suffering from stimulative disorder so that the defendant is not healthy, and has a child and a mother who has to care for and support with economic conditions, such as suffering from stimulative disorder.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not very likely to commit the crime by taking advantage of the fact that the victim was unable to resist by taking advantage of the victim, who did not care of the victim who was drinking together by the defendant, and was unable to do so, and taking the victim's breath under the influence of alcohol using smartphones, and the crime is not likely to be committed.

In the future, the victim seems to have received sexual humiliations and mental impulses that he/she had suffered from these crimes, regardless of whether he/she was locked.

The defendant did not receive a written application from the victim, and the victim is punished by the defendant.

In particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same sexual crime.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. The sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed within the appropriate scope of sentence corresponding to the Defendant’s liability, and it is not determined that the sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.