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 (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the judgment below acknowledged the defendant's mistake, he has supported the front wife who is a person with a disability of Grade 2 in visual disability, supported the previous wife who is a person with a disability of Grade 2 in visual disability by drinking and contingently committing the crime of this case. The crime of this case was committed in attempted attempt, and the court below expressed that the injured person was not willing to be punished by the defendant. However, the defendant had already been punished by imprisonment and suspension of execution of imprisonment for several times due to the same crime of this case. After the execution of the imprisonment, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the crime of this case during the repeated period, and other various circumstances, such as the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstance before and after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, occupation, etc., the punishment of the defendant cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the first head [criminal record] column of the crime of the lower judgment was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for one year and six months on June 29, 2012, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on March 1, 2014.

“On June 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year for committing a crime of larceny, such as special larceny, at night at Seoul Northern District Court on June 29, 2012, and completed the execution of each sentence on March 1, 2014.

“Along with the provisions of Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the term “Article 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act” in the application of the law of the lower judgment is clear that the term “1.” was erroneous in office under Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act, and thus, Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.