The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

The defendant has no criminal record of the same kind.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the damage recovery caused by the crime of this case was not performed properly.

If 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, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and various circumstances as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unreasonable, given that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. In so doing, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is obvious that the “victim C” in the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the “victim D”, it shall be corrected as ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.