The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the first instance court, and the sentence of the first instance court is within the scope of the discretion of sentencing granted to the lower court, and it cannot be said that the said sentence is reasonable and unfair because it is too unreasonable due to the lack of discretion.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

However, the judgment of the court below is clearly a clerical error in the 7th sentence of the 2nd sentence of the judgment below in the 7th sentence, since the "GIORG ARMI" is a misunderstanding of the "GIO ARNI" company," it is obvious that the 7th sentence of the judgment below is a clerical error in the "GIORGIO ARNI" company, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the