The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and the equity between larceny and the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the judgment of the lower court was rendered.

However, the crime of this case is likely to interfere with restaurant business at a place where many people gather, and furthermore, to insult the police officers dispatched, and it is not good for the crime to be committed.

In particular, even though there was a history of punishment, including punishment due to interference with the same kind of work, the defendant committed the crime of this case, and has not been used by the victims until now.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.