2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

Considering the normal data submitted at a health stand and a trial in this case, it is difficult to evaluate that there exists a change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and in the case of the crime of Electronic Financial Transactions Act, social harm, such as scam, etc. can be committed, and in the case of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), the defendant committed again the crime during the period of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the previous crime of drunk driving, as well as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., in full view of the sentencing reasons revealed in the oral proceedings of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to evaluate

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