The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the original judgment and No. 2-A. 2 in the decision of the court below for the crime No. 1 in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

As to the instant case, the health care unit, the Defendant’s confession and reflects the instant crime, and the first crime and the second-class of the judgment of the court below.

The crime should be considered at the same time as fraud of first head of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the victim during the trial of the court below. However, this is difficult to evaluate that there is a change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below in this case where the court below did not submit any particular sentencing data in the trial because all of the circumstances were considered in the process of determining the punishment, and considering the following factors: the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the victim during prison life; the defendant did not agree with the victim; and the defendant did not agree with the victim; and the sentencing factors revealed during the arguments of this case, including age, character, character, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's sentencing is too unreasonable.