The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As shown in the record of the lower court, the Defendant recognized the entire criminal facts, partly damaged goods have been returned, and the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition of shock that it is difficult for the Defendant to control is considered favorable to the Defendant.

However, there are many kinds of records of the defendant, and repeatedly committed the same crime during the period of repeated crime, and the fact that the victims have not been agreed with the victims until the trial is disadvantageous to the defendant.

The lower court, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, determined the Defendant’s punishment.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there is no change in circumstances such as repayment and agreement with other victims, which may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court, and taking full account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too large to escape from the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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.