The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case (limited to four years of imprisonment, 80 hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs, disclosure of information, and 4 years of notification), which the court below made, is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant, who was committed all the instant crimes, shows the appearance of breaking and reflecting one’s mistake; (b) there was no record of having been sentenced to more severe punishment than the fine; (c) there was no previous conviction; and (d) the amount of damage from the crime of embezzlement of stolen property was not significant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who was a taxi engineer, by gathering the victim on the land where he was living in the taxi while taking full advantage of the mental condition, sexual intercourse and embezzled gift certificates between the victim in the taxi. The crime of this case was committed in light of the crime circumstances, details and methods, etc., and the crime's nature and criminal circumstances are very poor and heavy. The victim appears to have suffered considerable sexual humiliation and mental shock due to the crime of quasi-rape of this case. Nevertheless, the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, etc., which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

As above, considering the motive, circumstance, means and consequence of each of the instant offenses, circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and family relationship, as a whole, various sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the following: (a) the lower court appears to have sentenced the Defendant for four years, etc. within the scope of the recommended sentence specified in the sentencing guidelines (three to five years), and (b) the lower court appears to have sentenced the Defendant within the scope of the punishment specified in the sentencing guidelines, and even if there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the lower court in the trial, the lower court’s punishment is within the proper scope of the punishment according to the Defendant’s responsibility.