The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. The Defendant recognized that the instant crime was committed in the course of trial, and his mistake was pened in depth.

Defendant planned to commit a crime.

It seems that the opportunity for the victim to take a drinking place is somewhat contingent and contingent to commit the instant crime.

The defendant has no record of being punished for not only the same sex offense but also for any crime.

It seems clear that the social relationship between the family members of the defendant and several other persons is clear, such as the application of the defendant's preference to the defendant.

These circumstances are considered as the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have sexual intercourse with the victim under the influence of alcohol by the victim. In light of the subject of the crime, the process and circumstances of the crime, and the method of the crime, such as the fact that the victim had sexual intercourse with the victim several times in the same opportunity, the victim’s sexual intercourse with the president who operates the restaurant where the defendant works.

The victim suffered a huge psychological impulse and mental suffering due to the crime of this case, and the victim wanted to be punished against the defendant.

Even until now, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and did not recover the damage to the victim.

These circumstances correspond to the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of such various circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions and statutory penalty (limited to imprisonment of not less than three years) as indicated in the instant argument, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two to half years), etc., the sentence of the lower court is recognized to be within the reasonable scope of discretion.

On the other hand, compared to the first instance court.