The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for 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. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances: (a) no special change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment; and (b) the sentencing grounds stated by the lower court do not seem to have been excessive in sentencing, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion, even if the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.