The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months) imposed by the court below 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, while considering the fact that the defendant was subject to criminal punishment three times due to driving without a license and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and without being aware of the fact that the defendant re-offending without being aware of the fact, the court below set the punishment against the defendant by taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant appears to reflect; (b) there was no traffic accident; (c) there was no criminal record from the punishment; and (d) the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances at the time of the crime; and (b) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, 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.