The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

If 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following, there is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that may be reflected in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the lower court rendered the Defendant a sentence amounting to the lower limit of the statutory penalty that has been mitigated, and the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated offense, and the lower court comprehensively takes into account the circumstances revealed in the reasons for the sentencing, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as a whole, various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the lower court’s sentence’s reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not recognized as unfair

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below. Since it is obvious that "Article 148-2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act" in Article 148-2 is a clerical error in the "Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" in Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the defendant's appeal shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.