The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Where 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 discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Not only has yet been recovered from damage, but also the Defendant has the history of having been punished several times due to the de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto de facto, and in particular, constitutes a same repeated offense.

As long as the defendant repeats the same crime despite the continued punishment of the defendant, it is inevitable to severely punish him/her.

The court below determined punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the punishment of the court below in the court below.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as revealed in the oral arguments at the lower court and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot, as it takes place within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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