The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment and forty hours of completion of sexual assault treatment programs) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect the mistake while committing the crime; (b) appears to have committed a crime somewhat contingently under the influence of alcohol; (c) 20 college students have no criminal history; and (d) the Defendant’s family members and branch members have complained of the wife.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed sexual intercourse with the victim under the influence of alcohol by having him drink with the victim who was first talked through the introduction of a friendship. The crime of this case was committed in light of the nature and method of the crime, the relationship with the victim, etc., where the nature of the crime and the circumstances are heavy and bad, and the victim seems to have caused considerable mental shock and sexual humiliation. Nevertheless, the fact that the victim did not receive a letter from the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering the following factors, the court below held that the punishment imposed by the court below is within the appropriate scope of punishment in accordance with the defendant's liability for the crime, and that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentence of the court below in the court below in the first instance court, considering the following factors: (a) the defendant's age, sexual behavior and environment, family relation, health status, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime; and (b) the court below held that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years by escaping from the lowest limit of the recommended sentencing range (two years to half years) set forth in the sentencing guidelines (two years to six months to five years).

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal disputing unfair sentencing is without merit.

The conclusion is.