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 Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime despite a criminal record of multiple times interfering with the Defendant’s business affairs, and the instant crime is committed by compulsion of the Victim G under the age of 13, by force, by obstructing the Defendant’s business operation, by obstructing the victim’s main business affairs, by in collusion with B, and obstructing the victim I’s main business affairs, etc., which are not appropriate for the quality of the crime; the instant crime committed in collusion with B, giving the victim G with considerable mental suffering and suffering; the Defendant did not agree with the victims up to the time of the trial; the Defendant did not agree with the victims; the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and other conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; thus, the Defendant’s above assertion by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the lower court (Article 16(2) main text of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes). However, “Article 16(2) main text of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes” in Article 6 of the lower judgment is a clerical error in Article 21(2) main text of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse. “Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes” in five acts is obvious that it is a clerical error, and the lower judgment is corrected or deleted under Article 25(1) of the