2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the crime due to Bosing is very poor in the nature of the crime; (b) the personal and social harm is serious; and (c) the crime of this case constitutes a major part of the crime as a means to realize the benefit of the crime; and (d) the victims’ damage was not recovered and there is no possibility of recovery; and (e) the fact that the Defendant led to confession and reflects the crime.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and in light of the balance of the sentencing with the same kind of crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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