The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against L by the misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged without any intention to obstruct the Defendant, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts, although there was no pecuniary benefit acquired by the Defendant as a result of the victim’s act of disposal.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal at the lower court’s lower court’s determination as to misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion based on the following reasoning.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle of judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists an area unique to the first instance court regarding the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial court were submitted, there is no meaningful change in the terms of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court’s sentencing was excessively excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, comprehensively taking account of all the various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the change theory.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.