The sentencing of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment due to the Defendant’s act of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.). In light of the sentencing of the same similar case, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant in light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc., taking into account the various circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the instant crime was committed on one-time medication of phiphonephones, etc., but the Defendant had a history of criminal punishment for a total of six times including the one-time punishment for the same crime. In particular, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, considering the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstance after the instant crime was committed, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.