The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognized the crime of this case and the liability therefrom, the Defendant suffers from mental illness, such as Cho Jong-dong disorder, and that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine prior to the instant case is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in the victim's head and face, etc. so that it is highly violent and dangerous, the degree of injury suffered by the victim is serious due to the crime of this case, and even though the victim suffered considerable damage due to the crime of this case, it is disadvantageous to the defendant that the defendant did not recover from damage.

On the other hand, the defendant argued that the victim's water that the victim gets hump in order to capture her rape, and thus, the victim's water that the victim hump had humped in order to take this into consideration in sentencing. However, as duly admitted and examined evidence by the court below, the crime of this case is no longer found in the defendant's house, and the defendant's head and face, etc. of the victim who suffered hump after being humped in coffee so it is difficult to recognize the circumstances leading up to the crime alleged by the defendant, and even if the defendant made a statement at an investigative agency as above, he raped the victim who suffered from mental illness, such as Cho Jong-dong disorder.