The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance (three years of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable;

2. The instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant had sexual intercourse with the victim, by reporting that the victim was at the first time in a state of failing to resist under the influence of alcohol, and that the victim had sexual intercourse.

In addition, the victims suffered severe mental impulses due to the instant case, and continuously complaining of various symptoms related to the instant case, including uneasiness, portrait, depression, fluor, and musical monet, and have been treated with a mental disorder.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not recover from damage to the victim and did not receive a letter from the victim.

Considering these circumstances, the defendant should bear strict responsibility for the crime.

However, the first instance court has no domestic criminal history against the defendant, and the defendant seems to have led to a serious prejudice to his/her own mistake. In addition, in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances after committing the crime of quasi-rape in accordance with the sentencing guidelines and the circumstances indicated in the records, the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines falls under the basic area of category 1 (general rape) out of the "rape (general standards)" of the "rape (the persons aged 13 or older)" of the sentencing guidelines, and the scope of the recommended sentence shall be two years and six months to five years, and the scope of the recommended sentence corrected considering the lower limit of the applicable sentencing guidelines shall be three years to five years, respectively.

C. Within the range of punishment, three years have been sentenced to imprisonment, which is the lowest limit of the applicable sentencing range, and in light of all the sentencing materials indicated in the records of this case, the sentence imposed on the defendant by the first instance court is deemed to have been determined at the lowest of the applicable sentencing range, and it is not recognized that it is too unreasonable to deem that the sentence imposed on the defendant by the first instance court was determined at the lowest of the applicable sentencing range.

Therefore, the defendant.