The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and ten months of imprisonment) 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The facts that the defendant is against the defendant, has dependents, and there are no criminal records of the same kind are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant's act disturbs the housing supply order, and the social harm therefrom is serious, and the number of times the defendant acquired the house certificate and status together with other co-offenders or independently from other co-offenders reaches 7 times, and the number of times the house is supplied by illegal means reaches 39 times, and the number of times the house is supplied by illegal means is considerably high compared with other similar cases, and there is no small scale of the disturbance of the housing supply order.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relation, etc. as well as various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings and records, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed excessively excessive beyond the reasonable limit of discretion.

3. 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.