The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair argument of sentencing) is too unreasonable. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court needs to respect the sentencing of the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). ① The fact that the defendant recognizes all the crimes in this case in the trial at a party level and repents wrong facts, ② although the mental health condition of the defendant is not up to the degree of mental and physical weakness, it appears to have an impact on the crime in this case, ③ the current occupation or status of the defendant, ④ the degree of exercising the tangible power or the degree of carrying out the tangible power, etc., which are favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had already been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime and a suspended sentence of imprisonment as in the original judgment, it is necessary to consider the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, such as (i) the commission of the instant crime during the suspended sentence; (ii) the criminal facts that became guilty and the form of the instant criminal facts are similar to that of the instant criminal facts; (iii) the Defendant committed the instant crime against “juvenile who believed and trusted to himself as a diplomatic mission; and (iv) the victim’s failure to take the Defendant into account.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s age, occupation, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime; (b) various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument (including the sentencing data added in the trial); (c) the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee; (d) the scope of statutory penalty and applicable sentences; and (e) the punishment examples of similar cases, etc., it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.