2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal (such as confession and reflectability, and the fact that it is anticipated that there is difficulty in prison life due to the gender identity of the defendant) are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is too unreasonable (the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was administered a penphone upon strong solicitation from C in relation to each of the crimes of this case, and claimed that the Defendant was dedicated to the purchase and medication of the penphones, but did not provide to distribute it by selling it, etc.). In addition, there was a history of being punished due to the scambling of hallucinogenic substances, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same crime, and since five months have not passed since the date the judgment became final and conclusive, and each of the crimes of this case was repeated.