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 solely on the 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, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, including the suspended sentence of imprisonment. In particular, on November 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten years for the purpose of interference with business, etc. on the part of October, 2017, and on November 25, 2017, the said judgment became final and conclusive and conclusive on November 25, 2017, and even during the suspended sentence, the Defendant was guilty of committing each of the crimes in this case, and thus, the Defendant’s strict punishment is inevitable.

The lower court determined the punishment by fully taking account of all circumstances, including the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, such as the Defendant’s health condition, etc., and even though there was a circumstance in which the Defendant led to the confession of the part of the offense of insult, which was denied by the previous trial when considering the relationship of evidence, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment was a ground for mitigation of the punishment. In addition, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s decision because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and thus, it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.