The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fact that the defendant's judgment on the grounds for appeal of this case is contrary to the recognition of the crime of this case, the fact that the cell phone used by the defendant immediately after the crime of this case was seized to an investigative agency and the victim's body parts are not exposed to many and unspecified persons, and that there are family members to support the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed in the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant intruded into a female toilet for sexual purposes and used a mobile phone to take the form of the victim’s melting the victim by using the mobile phone; (b) it is not good in light of the method and content of the crime; (c) the Defendant was punished for sexual crimes twice; and (d) the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period despite being sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution on December 5, 2012; and (d) there was no circumstance to deem that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims up to the trial; and (e) there was no other circumstance to deem that the Defendant took measures to recover the damage; (b) considering various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.