The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment and one year and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, the lower court: (a) the most of the acquired automobiles were returned to the owner; (b) the amount actually acquired by the Defendant is smaller than the amount of criminal facts; (c) there is a power of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (d) there is no reasonable consideration of the sentencing of the Defendant’s.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. As such, 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.