The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the court of first instance regarding the determination of sentencing, and in light of the ex post facto and aesthetic nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court of first instance, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. It is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the sentencing of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below ex officio dismissed " March 23, 2018" from among the first head criminal records as " March 27, 2018," which reads " March 27, 2018."