The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant, who denied the facts charged in the instant case at the lower court’s trial on the summary of the grounds of appeal (unfair sentencing), stated that all of the facts charged in the instant case was led to the confession on the date of the first trial of the first instance court and appealed only on the grounds of unfair sentencing

The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined a punishment within a reasonable scope, by fully taking into account all the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the circumstances favorable to

Except for the fact that the defendant who denied the facts charged in this case was committed in the trial of the court below, there is no change in circumstances to be newly considered in the trial of the court after the judgment of the court below, and even when considering the circumstances that the defendant has led to all of the crimes in this case in the trial of the court below, considering the motive, means and result of the crime in this case and the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and so it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

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