2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. While the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing between the court of first instance and the court of first instance because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the health room and the court of first instance; and (b) in particular, the sentence of the first instance court is the lowest sentence of the sentence mitigated.

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.