2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant agreed with the victim and the Defendant should consider equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of injury for which judgment became final and conclusive, etc. In addition, the Defendant’s history of punishment for the same kind of crime is more severe than that of the Defendant, as well as that of committing the instant crime during the suspension period of execution for the same kind of crime.

In addition, the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal are deemed to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, etc. as shown in such circumstances, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the Defendant was sentenced on November 16, 2016 by the Busan District Court for six months for the crime of injury, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2017; “Application of Acts and subordinate statutes” means “1. Concurrent treatment” and “after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively.