2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and 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). A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and that it is agreed with the victim.

However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below. Each of the crimes of this case was committed by the defendant while the defendant was found at the place of business of the victim, thereby threatening debt collection, exercising power, and causing injury. It is not good that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant during the period of suspended execution, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, after considering the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair since the court below's punishment is too excessive.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

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.