The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of all favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Although all the facts charged that the defendant led to the withdrawal from the trial to the previous trial, it is difficult to see that the sentence of the court below is to be mitigated when considering the relation of evidence, and there is no change in circumstances that can reduce the sentence of the court below in the trial due to the fact that the defendant still fails to receive a letter from the victim in the trial.

In full view of these circumstances and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.