2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect the instant crime. The Defendant appears to have agreed with the victim at the investigation stage, and the victim wanting to have the Defendant’s wife, but the lower court appears to have determined the Defendant’s punishment differently, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower court, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 months or suspended sentence for interference with official duties on December 16, 2016, and the Defendant did not appear to have been sentenced for 10 years or more, the circumstances and extent of the Defendant’s motive, method, and scope of the instant crime after the judgment was finalized, and all of the instant crime.

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.