The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the opinion of the appellate court differs from that of the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of all favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, and it is difficult to find any change in the special conditions of sentencing.

Considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of a crime, various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

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.