The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: (a) the part concerning attempted quasi-rape among the instant crimes, among the instant crimes, is contingent; (b) the attitude of the crime is relatively minor; (c) the Defendant acknowledges the criminal facts and reflects the mistake; (d) the Defendant is scheduled to make efforts to reach an agreement with the victim; and (e) there are no criminal records other than those subject to punishment twice for traffic-related crimes, the punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. On the grounds of appeal, the Defendant infringed on the next house using a small bridge during one night, and attempted to steals the clothes of the victim in the ward, and to discover the victim who was in the room, and sexual intercourse with the victim.

Although the victim's crime of quasi-rape was committed against the victim's sleep or anti-rape, such an act of the defendant must be punished strictly because the defendant's act is very serious to the nature and risk of the crime.

In addition, there was no agreement between the defendant and the victim, and there was no circumstance that the defendant has made efforts to recover damage after the crime, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, comprehensively considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and background of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair due to the absence of sentence ( further, statutory punishment for the Defendant’s crime is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for a limited term of not less than five years, and the lower court sentenced a three-year imprisonment with prison labor less than the lower limit of statutory punishment by reducing the amount of punishment). Meanwhile, even though the Defendant asserted various favorable circumstances on the grounds of appeal, these circumstances were already considered in the sentencing of the lower court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in comparison with the lower court due to the failure to submit new materials for sentencing after

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.