The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). The lower court determined punishment in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant, who led to a crime, committed a crime, committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of suspension of execution due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; (c) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim; and (d) committed a long-term escape after committing the crime; and (d) there is no new circumstance that the lower court changed the sentence in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, criminal records, character and conduct, method and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the arguments of the lower court and the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be deemed as heavy.

3. In conclusion, 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.