2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it is difficult to view that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being frightened.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed as it is without merit.

[In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction is filed, the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case, but the accused did not object to the part of the compensation order of the original judgment, and even if ex officio is examined, the grounds for cancelling or amending the part of the compensation order of the original judgment cannot be found. Therefore, the part of the compensation order of the original judgment