The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 in its holding, three-year imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 3, 4 and 5 in its holding, and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances, in light of the appellate court’s ex post facto and in-depth nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that the sentence in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of the sentencing in its stated reasoning, such as the confession of the Defendant, no human life or injury has occurred, and the degree of property damage has been significant, the circumstances favorable to the sentencing in the first instance court have already been determined by the lower court, taking into account the sufficient consideration of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the first instance court, and the final judgment.