The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants) by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case 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, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Judgment

1) The crime of this case at a disadvantage of the victim under the influence of alcohol was committed by the defendant due to indecent act by taking the chest of the victim's chest into the room where the female victim under the influence of alcohol was married, and in light of the background and method of the crime, etc., it is not good that the criminal liability is heavy and high. The victim seems to have been committed by the defendant who was committed an indecent act by his relative for a long time, as well as a serious sexual humiliation, and has suffered from mental shock that is difficult to recover, including human sense of birth, etc. It appears that the defendant had completely denied the crime since the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court of the court below. Nevertheless, the defendant was asserting that the victim was not guilty of the crime, and the victim was in bad faith, thereby causing second damage to the victim. However, the defendant committed the crime in the trial and led to the confession of his mistake.