The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of three years and six months and the fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. While considering the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime several times, and that the defendant has repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case after having completed the execution of the last sentence within the repeated crime period of three months, the court below sentenced a minor sentence than the final judgment prior to reexamination, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant committed the crime in an economically poor state, some of the victims wish to take the defendant's preference against the defendant, the defendant has a disability, and the defendant has grown in an unsatisfy environment.

The lower court’s determination on sentencing appears to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.; there is no obvious change in the sentencing conditions that can correct the lower court’s judgment in the first instance court; and there is no good evidence of the nature of the crime of the act of using the daily system among each of the crimes in this case, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is excessively excessive compared to the Defendant’s responsibility.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That the first part of the facts constituting the crime of the court below is obvious that the “10 times over 8 times” in the first part of the crime of the court below is a clerical error in the “8 times,” and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with