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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the fact that the Defendant is elderly, and the fact that the Defendant’s health is not good, are favorable circumstances.

However, in full view of such circumstances as the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime, and the victim was not relieved of damage, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the lower limit of the recommended sentence (from 6 months to 1 June) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Decision on the sentencing Commission is too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is ex officio, and the court below’s “applicable law” column “1. The pertinent law on criminal facts” is corrected as “1. The pertinent law on criminal facts and the choice of punishment”.