The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime.

Some victims have not been punished for the defendant.

The defendant seems to have caused the crime of this case because he was unable to visit the poor living while living in the old.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not deemed to have been committed again during the period of repeated crime by the defendant who has served six times the same criminal records and sentenced to punishment for the same criminal records.

The crime of this case is committed by the defendant by destroying the victims' or the structure, and is also serious.

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 as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.