The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the reasons for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment and rendering a sentence that does not vary from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence by considering all favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances to

Comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, nature of the offense, and philopon handled, criminal history, motive, means and consequence of the offense, the circumstances after the commission of the offense, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion and thus unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.