The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In comparison with the judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Sentencing elements asserted by the Defendant appear to have been fully considered by the lower court in determining the sentence. This court did not submit new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court.

Furthermore, the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim who was under 16 years of age who was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to resist. Considering the victim’s age, type of crime, etc., the victim’s physical and mental harm seems to be serious, such as the victim’s uneasiness and depression. As such, the Defendant still did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victim. In full view of various sentencing factors indicated in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if the Defendant considered all the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as where all of the instant crimes are recognized and against the Defendant, the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive, and thus, is not recognized as exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion

The defendant's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is unreasonable is not accepted.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.