2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing reasons revealed during the pleadings in the instant case and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is apparent that “1. Investigation Report (the calculation of additional charges)” was erroneously omitted in the column of evidence in the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure