The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable (one year of the suspended sentence of six months of imprisonment).

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new data on sentencing have not been submitted at the trial of the original judgment. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing presented by the lower court, the original judgment’s sentence is within the scope of the discretion of sentencing assigned to the lower court, and it cannot be deemed unfair due to its proper and too unlimited sentencing.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that although there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the determination of punishment by considering it as an aggravated factor is unfair.

According to the records, on October 4, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won by interfering with the exercise of rights at the Seoul Southern District Court. The above judgment became final and conclusive on October 12, 2013. The summary of criminal facts in the above final judgment was “The Defendant purchased a digging pool with a loan from a financial institution, and set up a mortgage on a digging season to a financial institution as security for the loan. However, although the Defendant was given a peremptory notice to return a digging pool to the financial institution to exercise the mortgage after delinquency in payment of the loan, the Defendant concealed the digging pool and refused to return it.

“The content of “....”

The crime of this case is deemed to have caused the Defendant to transfer the sofags to a third party at the time of the death of the financial institution, and its location is unknown. In light of the method and method of the crime, the crime of this case can be assessed as identical to the crime subject to the above final judgment. On the other hand, unlike the crime of the above final judgment, the sofags are purchased in the name of the Defendant, not in the name of the Defendant, but in its spouse, and the name of the crime

It is difficult to view it as a crime of the same kind ( even if it can not be assessed as a crime of the same kind, it can be assessed as an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant.