The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and reflects on the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and is under mental treatment due to depression and alcohol dependence, etc.

It is reasonable to take into account the sentencing of the defendant for the following reasons: (a) where the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, the two suspended sentence becomes void, and the punishment for a total of one year and four months should be imposed.

① However, even though the total amount of damage to each of the instant crimes is equivalent to KRW 700,000,000, the damage was not recovered until the date the judgment of the trial court rendered after each of the instant crimes was rendered, and ② the Defendant was sentenced to a fine and a suspended sentence of imprisonment for at least five times after 2010. Among them, a large amount of criminal facts was the same as the instant crimes, which interfere with the duties of drinking houses, etc. operated by another person or was in a drinking house or restaurant, and ③ Each of the instant crimes was committed on the grounds that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and was committed on May 28, 2015, which became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of about 15 times and a stay of execution from around 2004 due to drinking driving, interference with the performance of official duties, interference with duties, and the like. Although the defendant was sentenced to a suspended execution, he did not have a significant total amount of damage in each individual case.

Even if the defendant is repeatedly and repeatedly committed and the defendant does not reflect, the court shall render the sentence as much as possible.