2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, it appears that the lower court is determined by considering such circumstances, and considering the age, the defendant’s sex, circumstances, circumstances, and all the circumstances of the crime in this case after examining the following circumstances, the lower court appears to have been determined within the reasonable scope of sentencing.

Although the defendant made a confession of all crimes when he was in the past, the sentence of the court below appears to be appropriate even if it is considered, and no change in special circumstances exists to change the sentencing of the court below.

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