The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where the appellate court’s sentencing determination is deemed unfair in light of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of the sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court’s sentence return to the instant case is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1) The lower court determined that the Defendant committed the instant crime on a planned basis.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence to see, and that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, ② the crime of this case is taken against the victim’s will on the ground that the victim who was a chain of relationship demands the hedging of the victim, and thus, the defendant’s responsibility is not somewhat weak for rape by threatening the victim. The victim appears to have caused considerable mental shock and sense of sexual shame, sexual humiliation, and distribution to the defendant due to the crime of this case, and the defendant does not seem to entirely reflect the sex relationship by agreement, etc., and the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim.