The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) asserts that the defendant is too unfair because of the too large punishment sentenced by the lower court (3 years and six months, etc. of imprisonment).

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its holding, has determined the punishment against the Defendant by taking into account all the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant, and it is recognized that the lower court has determined the punishment appropriately by taking into account the important circumstances in full.

Although the defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case that he had been denied from the trial to the previous trial, it is difficult to view that the sentence of the court below is a reason to reduce the sentence, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means, frequency, and consequence of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, all of the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of the instant case, such as the scope of punishment following the sentencing guidelines, the sentence imposed by the lower court was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so ordered.