The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, that the victim did not want the punishment against the defendant by agreement with the victim, that the defendant was disabled persons of class 5 with physical disability due to the age of 65 years old, that the health of the defendant is not good, that the defendant has no record of punishment more than the suspension of execution than punishment than punishment by imprisonment without prison labor, and that the neighbor of the defendant wants to take a preference against the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the Defendant, using the circumstance that the Defendant did not easily resist sexual crimes due to mental disorder and did not have the ability to cope with such mental disorder, thereby committing indecent acts against the victim who is the intellectual socially weak, and even sexual intercourse. The nature and circumstances of the crime are significant. The victim who neglected the 4th children living alone is suffering from considerable mental shock, and the Defendant is the head of the D's team against the disabled, and rather, the Defendant is a disabled person as the head of the D's team against the disabled person, and rather is likely to be criticized for the crime of this case without any awareness of any particular crime against the disabled person.

When considering the above circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant are already considered in determining the punishment in the original instance, and there is no change in sentencing conditions to deem that maintaining the sentencing of the original court is unfair, and it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the original court is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.