2. Although there are circumstances that may be considered, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, that the Defendant served as part of his family members in order to punish his living expenses, resulting in the instant crime, and that the Defendant received treatment by depression, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by reflecting all of the circumstances in the lower court, and there are no special circumstances that could change the punishment in the first instance.

On the other hand, the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of suspended execution without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Military Service Act during the period of suspended execution after he was sentenced to a prison term of four months during the period of suspended execution of this crime, and neglecting his duty of service as a social service personnel, which is a part of the duty of military service, may be deemed to be an exceptional crime.

Examining the facts that the Defendant cannot be said to have been present on the date of pronouncement of judgment at the lower court, and the fact that the Defendant escaped for a long time until he/she was detained by a detention warrant on November 14, 2015 and obstructed the progress of legitimate judicial proceedings, and other various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and circumstances of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is determined within the reasonable and appropriate scope, and it is not determined as unfair due to excessive fault.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion.

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.