The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the reflection of the situation and the North Korean defectors who have no record of being punished for the same kind of crime) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

Considering comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of each of the instant offenses; and (b) the Defendant’s motive, means and consequence of the commission of each of the instant offenses; and (c) the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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