The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months) by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that there are favorable circumstances such as: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime against his mistake; (c) the Defendant, in an economic situation where it is difficult to have divorced from the young age of 23 years of age in 2008; and (d) he avoided enlistment; (b) there are circumstances that may be somewhat different from those that may be taken into account; (c) the Defendant did not repeat the crime; and (d) the Defendant’s family members and branch members want to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; (d) the Defendant’s family members and branch members want to take the Defendant’s wife for a period of four months of detention; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been given the opportunity to be able to take care of the punishment.

However, on July 19, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Military Service Act at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months on July 19, 2013, and committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2013. The military service obligation is the most fundamental and unnecessary obligation of all citizens for maintaining the existence and security of the Republic of Korea, and Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act provides only imprisonment with prison labor, and Article 88(1) of the same Act provides that the instant crime constitutes a crime under the suspended sentence, which constitutes a crime under the grounds for disqualification under the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the sentence is inevitable, taking into account the fact that the lower court’s sentence was determined by fully considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.