The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the Defendant has recognized a criminal act and agreed with the victim, the instant case, despite the agreement with the victim, requires the parties to enter into a second sales contract by deceiving the customers who have induced the customers to buy the second vehicle by fraudulent means, thereby disturbing the second trading order and thereby acquiring illegal criminal proceeds, the applicable law of the crime and the nature of the crime are very poor.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider sentencing after sentencing.

In addition, in full view of the defendant's age, health, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, records of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to the costs of lawsuit, the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).