The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the law.

The damage caused by the damage of property seems to be relatively insignificant.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by a defendant who has multiple violent crimes during the period of repeated crimes, and the nature of such crime is not good.

In addition, even though the Defendant was punished by a fine on January 24, 2018, the Defendant again committed the instant crime on January 24, 2018.

The Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the injured party.

If 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, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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