The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. However, the victim’s “R” of the 4th 13 parallel and the 5th to 3th end of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error of the “worker”, and the “victim” of the 4th parallel and 5th parallel are a clerical error of the “worker”, “Article 231 of the Criminal Act” and “Article 234” of the 6th parallel and “Article 234 of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 9 parallel’s “Article 34(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act,” and it is apparent that this error was omitted under Article 34(1) and Article 31(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it is corrected ex officio correction ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on the Criminal Procedure).