Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissed part of the judgment below is separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the guilty part becomes the object of the judgment

2. The summary of the reasons for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following circumstances are considered as favorable to the Defendant: (a) considering the following circumstances: (b) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (c) the Defendant agreed with the victim C; and (d) deposited KRW 1 million to the police officer G, etc.; and (c) the Defendant’s commission of the instant crime during the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to the same criminal act is highly likely to be subject to criticism; (d) considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) taking account of various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it is difficult to view

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.