The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Sentencing sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal (six months in imprisonment with prison labor for the original instance);

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing, determined the sentence by taking into account the various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and so it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, however, the judgment below's addition to "the defendant," which was sentenced to one year from February 14, 2008 to one year from the Daegu District Court Kimcheon support, for larceny, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the Daegu District Court on December 27, 2008. On December 18, 2009, the Incheon District Court sentenced him/her to one year and two months from imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Incheon Detention House on June 11, 2010." Thus, it is clear that the defendant added this to "the defendant is corrected pursuant to Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure).