2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance court differs from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing in light of the overall circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant had the history of the same offense, and the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime immediately after parole, and there is no reason to newly consider in the first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

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