2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

The defendant, while resisting the noise problem, opened the house of the victim without permission, opened the house of the main household, etc., and due to the defendant's act, it is judged that the elderly victim caused considerable anxiety.

The defendant did not agree with the victim or endeavor to recover from damage until the trial of the party.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances favorable to or unfavorable to the defendant, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal history, the sentencing of the court below is not determined to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.