2. In a case 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 reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the legislative intent of the Juvenile Protection Act, the circumstances in which the defendant alleged unfair reasons for sentencing have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court, the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with that of the lower court, the fact that the circumstances in which the defendant alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court, the fact that the defendant’s liability for the crime of selling alcoholic beverages to the juvenile without verifying identification cards in light of the fact that the defendant’s age, sex, environment, the degree of damage, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to be too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.