2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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.

B. The court below, under the circumstances where the defendant purchased a new vehicle and provided the victim with a mortgage on the vehicle as a collateral and concealed the vehicle as a result of interfering with the victim's exercise of rights, and thus the case is not less severe, and the damage still seems to have not yet been recovered, it seems that the defendant has paid the amount of the loan normally during about six months after the vehicle mortgage loan, and it appears that the case was reached for the purpose of financing the vehicle as collateral, and that there was no intention to dispose of the vehicle as collateral, and thus, it is not deemed that there was no intention to distribute the vehicle as collateral. Thus, the amount of the credit secured by the mortgage is not only the amount of the loan guaranteed by the mortgage, but also the amount of the loan guaranteed by the mortgage, and the fact that there was no same kind of criminal record, etc. is more favorable to each other, and the defendant's age, the environment, motive, means, and circumstances of the crime in this case after considering the following circumstances.

(c)

The reason for the court below's improper sentencing, as claimed by the prosecutor, seems to be the reason for the court below's determination of the defendant's punishment, and the above conditions of sentencing changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the court below's punishment is judged appropriate within the reasonable scope of discretion.