The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(2) According to the Majority Opinion, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s punishment was imposed in consideration of the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, such as the motive and method of the instant crime, the object and period of the crime, the victims’ emotional distress and sexual humiliation, and the victims’ failure to recover from damage, under the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, in view of the following: (a) there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s submission of new sentencing data; and (b) there was no change in the sentencing conditions; and (c) considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment was too too excessive, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.