2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court seems to have determined a sentence as above against the Defendant by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s wrong treatment and alcohol dependence; (b) the victim and the victim have agreed smoothly; and (c) the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, which was previously sentenced, may be invalidated if imprisonment is finalized due to the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant has been punished for the same crime and has been under suspension of execution; (b) some of the crimes were committed after being sentenced to a fine on March 25, 2020 due to special intimidation committed during the period of the said suspension of execution; (c) the crime was committed after being sentenced to a fine on March 25, 2020; (d) the crime of interference with business, insult, and injury committed four times other than the aforementioned past force.

Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the trial at the trial court, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the sentencing of the court below is not deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.