The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. In a case where 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, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the conditions favorable to the Defendant: (a) the recognition of the Defendant’s mistake and reflects the Defendant; (b) the damaged thing was returned to the victim; (c) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the Defendant’s health was not good.

On the other hand, in light of the background and method of the crime, there is a bad punishment of the crime, including imprisonment for the same and different crimes, and in particular, there is a lack of compliance consciousness, such as repeated committing the crime of this case during the period of suspension of execution of the same crime, and the risk of recidivism is judged to be very high, and there is no agreement with the victim, etc. that are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.