2. 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, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for 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 it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the materials for new sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the sentencing grounds revealed in the process of the instant pleadings are too large to the lower court’s sentencing, and thus, it does not appear that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

[However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term “the choice of each imprisonment” under Section 6(2) of the judgment of the court below shall be deleted, and the term “1. Commercial concurrence” and Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure) shall be deleted following the second sentence.

2) mutually between the crimes of uttering of each falsified document listed in paragraph 2-b.2 of the judgment, and between the crimes of uttering of each falsified document listed in paragraph 2-c of the judgment.

2) We add each of the crimes of uttering of each of the above investigation documents mentioned in paragraph (1), each of the crimes of uttering of the above investigation document, and the punishment prescribed for the crime of uttering of the above investigation document due to the exercise of each collection contract for each of the heavy recyclable products, “1. Selection of sentence,” and “each of the choice of imprisonment”