A. The Defendant, who was divorced from his spouse by contact with the Defendant, is raising a old parent. Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, committed a serious violation against his wrongness, and led to the instant crime due to his emotional problems, the lower court’s punishment (a prison term of six months, 40 hours, and effort order) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant, who had been punished several times due to the same crime as the instant case by the prosecutor, committed the instant crime, and that there is no effort to recover damage even though the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak in light of the content of the crime and the mental suffering of the victim, the above sentence of the lower court is rather unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below returned to the instant case and tried to examine the circumstances asserted by the Defendant with due regard to sentencing as stated in its reasoning. The circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor are deemed to have been sufficiently considered when determining the sentence in the lower court. In addition, the lower court did not additionally submit new sentencing materials to change the sentence in the lower court, including the fact that there is no additional submission of new sentencing materials to change the sentence in the lower court, and the lower court’s age, sex, environment, criminal records, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are too heavy or adequate.