2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that differs from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Considering the above legal principles, there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may have significant attention compared with the original court, and if it is difficult to reduce life due to the lack of health conditions, such a reason may be considered in the execution of the sentence, or considering the criminal liability of the Defendant, such as the selection of the type of punishment against the Defendant, which is beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s reasonable records of criminal acts and the scope of punishment for each of the Defendant committed committed committed in this case.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.