The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one hundred months of imprisonment, one hundred and seventy-two thousand won additional collection), is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of the following: (a) the health team and the Defendant have been recognized the entire crime of this case as to the instant case when they came to the trial; (b) it does not appear to have changed to the extent that the lower court’s sentencing is changed; and (c) no new sentencing data have been submitted in the trial; and (d) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(4) Article 74(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and Article 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and Article 74(1)2 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and Article 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., are clearly erroneous in the application of Article 74(1)2 and Article 44-7(1)1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc., and Article 25(1) of