Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant shall support the wife and two daughters, which reflects in depth the mistake of all the facts of each of the instant crimes, and partly damaged goods were returned or partly repaid out of the amount of damage, and the degree of participation in the commission of the crime is not excessive. In light of the above, the sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court as to sentencing determination in the current Criminal Procedure Act, so it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing determination 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, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the nature and content of each of the crimes in light of the crime, and the nature of the crimes in light of the circumstance, content and frequency of the crime. There is no special change in circumstances that the lower court should change the punishment after the pronouncement of the lower court, as well as any other records, such as the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case.