The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment with prison labor for crimes No. 1 and No. 3 as stated in the decision of the court below, six months and six months as stated in the decision of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion in sentencing, unlike various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, the circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., which are stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and others, such as the circumstance before and after the crime, that the defendant has agreed to the victim L and smoothly, that the defendant has to consider the balance between the case and the case where the judgment has been rendered simultaneously with the crime of this case.

In full view of the circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new material that was presented in the course of the trial of sentencing on the political party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court was inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. However, among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, it is obvious that the “17,00,000 won” of the second half of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error of “17,00,000 won” and it is apparent that the “the National Health Insurance Corporation” was omitted after the “victim” of the second sentence of the judgment of the court below on the second half of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is apparent that the correction