The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials were not submitted in the trial, and the sentencing of the lower court is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the first instance court is too large, considering all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing in the instant records and arguments

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That "2.5 million won" in the second half of the crime in the court below's decision is issued under Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is "after a summary order of 2.5 million won is issued," and "B" is the same crime as "B," and the same crime is "I" as "each crime during the application of the above law." The selection of "items of imprisonment" in the case of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to damage to property in the course of business," and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor for the remaining crimes, and correction of Article 38 (1) 2 of the "additional item of concurrent Crimes" (Article 38 (1) 2 of the "Additional Item 2" is added.