The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the Defendant’s sentencing into account, and even considering the circumstances asserted as grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too large and is not recognized as unfair (it does not re-offending while disposing of a passenger car owned by the Defendant in the first instance trial, and the Defendant’s personal seal wanted to take advantage of the various circumstances, but it is insufficient to reverse the lower court’s sentencing determination based on such circumstances alone). Accordingly, the Defendant’s argument on the sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.