The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In view of the fact that the defendant's mistake in depth is pened and reflected in his depth, the mother of the victim and the injured party does not want the punishment against the defendant, and the defendant is the primary offender, the sentence of the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower court, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

The Defendant made a confession of all the crimes of this case, and repented his mistake.

At the stage of investigation, the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to punish the defendant.

(Evidence Records 202 pages). The defendant, in fact, supported the victim while living with the mother of the victim as the father and wife, and the defendant is a primary offender who has no criminal power except for the crime in this case, is also favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed from the age of 11 to the age of 17.