2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions 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 on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined a punishment within a reasonable scope, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances with respect to the Defendant.

There is no change in the new sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the trial.

Considering this, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair on the sole basis of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal.

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.