The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution as to the violation of road traffic laws due to the destruction of the work environment and actual materials, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged, and dismissed part of the public prosecution for which the prosecutor did not appeal due to only the Defendant’s appeal against the guilty portion becomes final and conclusive by the lapse of the appeal period. Accordingly, in the first instance, the lower court is to decide only on the guilty portion among the judgment below.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 148-2(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act). However, among the judgment below, the order of Article 44(2) was omitted by mistake, and it is apparent that the order of Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is changed by mistake, since it is obvious that the order of Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act and the aggravated punishment were changed by mistake, it is corrected by adding it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.