2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant by concealing his/her own vehicle which is the object of the victim’s mortgage by means of delivering it to another person and obstructing the exercise of the victim’s right. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover from damage, it appears that the punishment was determined by considering the fact that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover damage, and there

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, amount of damage, records of the crime, method and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party branch, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be deemed as heavy.

3. In conclusion, 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.