The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant expressed his/her intent not to be punished against the Defendant by mutual agreement with the victim AG (2019Da3660) of property damage in the trial. However, in light of the portion of the crime of property damage in this case, it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment was the cause for mitigation of the sentence, and there is no other change of circumstances that could reduce the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In full view of such circumstances and the amount of damage, the content and nature of the crime, and the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the court below did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the court below because the sentence of the court below is too inappropriate, and thus, it does not accept the Defendant’s assertion.

3. If so, 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.