The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the ground that the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, inasmuch as the method of breach of trust is planned, and thus, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, such as: (a) the nature of the crime is bad; (b) the amount of damage is not significant; (c) there is no agreement or substantial damage recovery; (d) it is difficult to expect damage recovery in the future; and (e) the Defendant’s deep reflects the Defendant’s depth; and (e) there is no change in the sentencing conditions when compared with the lower court,

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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