The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence (4 million won in penalty) imposed by the court below on the defendant 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data have not been submitted in the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant for unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court. Perjury is deemed to have been reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds; perjury is a crime that impedes the proper exercise of the State’s judicial power by making it difficult to discover substantial truth; perjury is a crime of this case where the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was a repeated offender due to a different type of crime; and it is too beyond the reasonable scope of discretion in the lower court’s sentencing process, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion 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.