The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination of punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, such as the health zone, the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim, etc., was determined within a reasonable scope. Since there are no circumstances to newly consider in the trial, compared with the lower court’s sentencing conditions, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court inasmuch as there is no change in the sentencing conditions in comparison with the lower court

B. However, ex officio determination: (a) according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment to rape, etc. by the Cheongju District Court on June 20, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 11 of the same year; and (b) the defendant committed the crime of this case during the execution of the above punishment.

According to the above facts, the defendant is deemed disqualified under the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case, and the judgment of the court below which sentenced the suspension of execution against the defendant is erroneous in violation of the Act on the Suspension of Execution.

However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, the court below's judgment is not reversed for the above reasons, since it cannot be sentenced to a more unfavorable punishment than the sentence of the court below in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.