2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant stated that the instant crime is recognized and against the reflective nature, and the fact that the investigative agency compensates the victim for damage and agreed with the victim is favorable to the Defendant.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months on November 5, 2015 due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, interference with duties, damage to property, etc., and that the Defendant committed the instant crime at the same time during the repeated crime period, and the Defendant’s criminal history and violence tendency, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that there is no risk of recidivism. The Defendant appears to have an attitude to take a trial procedure that is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as where he was absent on the sentencing date without any special reason after attending the first trial date of the lower court, and failing to contact, etc.

In addition, in light of the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relation, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the crime in this case and the various sentencing conditions indicated in the present case's arguments and records, including the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (no person shall be subject to any special sentencing (from April to October), the basic area (no person may be subject to the lowest limit of the sentence according to the sentencing guidelines) and the circumstances in which the court below set the lowest limit of the sentencing range according to the sentencing guidelines, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

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 without merit.