The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the accused (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of additional collection, twenty-five thousand won, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant was a first offender with no record of punishment; (b) the Defendant was aware of all of the instant crimes; and (c) the Defendant did not repeat the crime and does not live in good faith.

However, the Defendant is qualified as a licensed real estate agent who shall contribute to the national economy by promoting the real estate brokerage business in a sound manner. Nevertheless, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s sentencing is unreasonable because the lower court’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, circumstances after the offense, etc., and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the motive and circumstance of the offense, the means and consequence of the offense, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are taken into account, and as such, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court is too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus it goes against the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing 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.