Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Considering the normal data submitted in the trial court, it is difficult to evaluate that there exists a change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, it is obvious that the “Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” in Part 3 of the lower judgment is a clerical error in the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (wholly amended by Act No. 15981, Dec. 18, 2018). Thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.