2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). It is recognized that the Defendant would not re-re-offending, is placed in an economically difficult living environment, health is not good due to physical disorder, etc., and that he lives together with the mother suffering from dementia.

However, the lower court appears to have determined a sentence by taking account of the above favorable circumstances, and, in particular, the lower court, despite the fact that the Defendant was punished due to drinking, violent crimes, etc., committed the instant crime under the influence of a fine even though he was under the name of several times during the suspension of execution due to the crime of injury even though he committed the instant crime.

In addition, considering all other circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot.

3. According to the 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.