2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

There are fathers of elderly who should support the defendant.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant during the period of suspension of execution due to the same criminal record, and it is not good that the crime was committed.

In particular, the Defendant was indicted with the charge of interference with the business affairs on March 26, 2018, which was after being placed in the line of the above suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime because it did not reach one month. In comparison with the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and in the event the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court at the trial.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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.