2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court’s reasoning for sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) includes the following: (a) the Defendant purchased a penphone in an amount of KRW 6 million again prior to the expiration of the suspended execution period despite having been sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a crime related to narcotics of the same kind; (b) the Defendant used a vehicle for which the mandatory insurance period has expired in the course of flight; (c) the Defendant caused a traffic accident while driving the vehicle in the course of flight; (d) the damage from traffic accident was not recovered; and (e) the amount of traffic accident is not large; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions on the records and pleadings of the instant case (the phone value purchased by the Defendant reaches KRW 6 million; and (e) some of the phiphones purchased were delivered to B; and (e) the Defendant’s statement was voluntarily known; and (e) the Defendant’s argument was inappropriate for treatment.

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