The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (e., one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) The court below’s determination of sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below on the grounds that there are no special changes in circumstances in the conditions of sentencing in the trial. In light of the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the defendant in the trial, including the confession of and reflect against a criminal act; (b) the defendant has already been sentenced to criminal punishment due to a criminal act under several Acts similar to this case; (c) the defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment due to a criminal act under several Acts similar to this case; (d) the execution of the sentence is completed; (e) the execution of the sentence is repeated; and (e) the victim did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victims; and (e) the court below’s determination of sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) there are no special changes in circumstances in the conditions of sentencing in the trial.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.