Since only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the dismissed portion was separated and determined as it was after the lapse of the appeal period, and excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court.

2. The sentence of the original court (one year of imprisonment) shall be too vague and unfair.

3. Determination

A. If 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing data has not been submitted in the first instance court; and (b) the sentencing of the lower court is too large and is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing reasons revealed in the oral proceedings.

C. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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