A. The sentence imposed by the court below (unfair imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in light of the content of the crime committed by a victim, who was the spouse of the Defendant, through conflict, and was hospitalized in a mental hospital by force, to a mental hospital, determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following factors: (a) the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the content of the crime committed by the Defendant, and the victim’s wishing to punish the Defendant; and (b) the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Committee, along

There is no other new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it has exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, the circumstances on the sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appear to have been reflected in the lower court’s determination of punishment as seen above, and the circumstance that the Defendant reverses the previous position in the trial and recognizes the crime is difficult to say that there is a change in the sentencing conditions to the extent of changing the punishment determined by the lower court, and otherwise, it is impossible to confirm the circumstances that the Defendant recovered part of the damage to the victim and restored it.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument on this issue are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant.