2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

Defendant reflects the wrong recognition of all crimes, and the crime of occupational embezzlement and the crime of this case in which judgment has become final and conclusive is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it is necessary to consider equity with the case of concurrent judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

There is no criminal record for the same crime.

However, the defendant did not agree with the victim by concealing the motor vehicle which was the object of the right to collateral security with the unpaid payment and preventing the exercise of the right by the victim.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the various conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleading and the record, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

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