2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in full consideration of the various favorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the record of the crime in this case, it is not deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

(However) In accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the lower court ex officio and, under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, dismissed the second action’s “ February 5, 2012” as “ May 4, 2012.” The third and fifth conducts, followed by adding “1. Selection of a sentence”, “voluntary mitigation”, “Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act”, respectively, to the third and eighth conduct.