2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The circumstances where the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against whom the Defendant is committing the instant crime are against the law.

However, the judgment of the court below seems to have set a sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances as above, there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant was in the same crime even though he was in the period of suspension of execution (the defendant is deemed to have already been sentenced by a fine twice during the period of suspension of execution), the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, such as the records and changes in the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence of the court below that sentenced the lower court to the recommended punishment (from April to August) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court is too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. 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 groundless.