A. The Defendant did not operate the game of this case in a way of exchanging facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same assertion in the lower court, and the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

In light of the records and thorough examination of evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court judgment on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the lower court did not recognize that the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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