2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the examination room and the trial room. In full view of all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, 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.

(However) In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s ex officio determination of the court below pursuant to Article 25(1) shall read “the pertinent Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and the choice of punishment” as “the pertinent Article of the Act on Criminal Facts,” respectively, and shall correct “No. 2” as “No. 1,” and shall add “the amount of aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes,” which reduces “the amount of aggravated punishment for each crime, within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishment for