The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the instant argument are comprehensive, it is not recognized that the first instance court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.