The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within the reasonable and reasonable scope after the appellate court’s ex post facto review nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Even though the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence differs from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances: (i) there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s age, Defendant’s sex, environment, criminal records, and the motive of the instant crime, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 37(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is clearly a clerical error in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act on the ground that “Article 37(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is clearly a clerical error in the Criminal Procedure Act” among the application of the law of the lower judgment on the ground that Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure is clearly erroneous.