The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unlimited and unfair.

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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and motive leading to the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, frequency of the crime (three times), etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive and so it cannot be said that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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