The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment, additional collection 1,680,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the grounds for the illegality of sentencing alleged by the Defendant are the circumstances that the lower court already considered in determining the punishment, and the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion when considering the overall circumstances related to the instant sentencing. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the foregoing given that the lower court’s sentencing was performed within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.