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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the following: (a) the defendant has committed a crime against himself/herself when he/she was in the trial; (b) the victim complained of the defendant’s wife; (c) the victim complained of the defendant’s wife; (d) the first offender is in an economically difficult situation; and

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by threatening the victim by changing the course of the vehicle that the defendant drives and obstructing the course of the victim's vehicle in a very dangerous manner, and the crime of this case is not likely to cause serious danger not only to the driver of the other vehicle or the passenger, but also to the life and body of the surrounding vehicle or the pedestrian, and thus, it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the appeal is without merit.