The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the fact that the Defendant had been subject to suspended sentence of imprisonment, a fine for drinking or driving without a license; (iii) the instant crime was committed during the period of suspended sentence; and (iv) the Defendant was committed under favorable circumstances; and (iii) the Defendant’s age and family relationship, etc. was committed, taking into account the following factors:

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above 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.