2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant did not know himself during the period of suspension of execution and led to the instant crime, the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, the Defendant’s reflectiveness, and the victim’s failure to punish the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, the court below takes into account the fact that the defendant seems to have failed to make a serious effort for the recovery of damage.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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.