The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of execution of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but only because the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 2

As the court below was not submitted, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and taking full account of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.