2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, it is recognized that the victim agreed with the victim, the instant crime is deemed to have been committed by the customers on the next table without any justifiable reason, and the Defendant taken video with a cell phone to have them run the restaurant business of the victim so that customers interfere with the restaurant business of the victim by allowing them to go on the said restaurant, and the crime is not easy, and there is no new circumstance that the Defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes, etc., and there is no other new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court at the trial, and taking into account various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, criminal records, character and behavior, criminal method and circumstance at the trial of the lower court and the trial of the political party, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court was done within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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