2. The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions set forth in the instant pleadings, based on the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances for the Defendant.

In addition, there is a part that the defendant caused the crime of this case, and the attitude that seriously reflects the crime of this case was received from the victim, and the first crime was committed, as well as the situation where the defendant lost the status of a public official who was frightened in the environment where the victim was difficult due to the criminal punishment of this case, and the circumstances favorable for the defendant to the greatest extent are favorable for the reasons for appeal.

Even if the court below had already taken into account the above circumstances in determining the defendant's punishment, and as a result, the court below seems to have rendered a relatively significant measure against the defendant such as the suspension of the execution of imprisonment.

In addition, even if the sentencing precedents of similar cases were added, such sentence of the court below exceeded the scope of sentencing discretion.

or to maintain a sentence significantly unfair;

In addition, there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing favorable to the reduction of the punishment, as well as that there is no change in the circumstances where the punishment should be mitigated.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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