The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the grounds of appeal.

2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant repents his mistake.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant by taking advantage of the victim's mental and physical loss or resistance impossible condition, and the nature of the crime is not good. The crime of this case was committed by the victim, and the victim was suffering from considerable mental suffering and pain due to the crime of this case, the defendant did not agree with the victim until the defendant was in the trial. The statutory punishment for the attempted quasi-rape of this case was imprisonment for more than three years. The court below sentenced one year and six months to the maximum one year and six months, and if there are legal grounds for mitigation, it should take precedence over the small amount of mitigation. The small amount of mitigation was to be sentenced to a lower sentence by relaxing the scope of the applicable sentences (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do985, Jun. 11, 1991; 91Do985, Jun. 11, 1991).

It is difficult to see that there is such error as claimed by the Defendant in the lower judgment where the attempted reduction was made and the remaining reduction was not made after the attempted reduction was made.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.