The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change 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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion in light of the following: (a) although the Defendant was found to have been in the trial, this does not appear to have changed to the extent that the lower court’s sentencing is changed; (b) the fact that new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial; and (c) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense; and (d) the circumstances after the offense.

3. 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.