The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake in depth, the defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime while drinking alcohol at the time. The crime of rape of the basic criminal was committed against the attempted crime, and that the defendant, who entered the country of employment visa, should support the wife in his own country and her children.

However, at night, the Defendant committed the instant crime by assaulting the victim, who was a minor, frighting alone with a view to little traffic of people, suppressing resistance, and committing the instant crime by inflicting bodily injury on the victim in the process. In light of the content and method of the crime, the nature of the crime is very poor.

The victim appears to have suffered serious mental impulse and pain with the sexual humiliation of the defendant due to the crime of this case, and the defendant did not receive any suspicion from the victim of this case.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances of crime, means and result, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the court below's sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, it is not determined that the court below's sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.