2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant reflects the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim is favorable to the Defendant.

However, this situation seems to be reflected in the sentencing as it appears in the court below.

The defendant repeated the crime during the period of suspension of execution.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, means of crime, age, character and conduct, environment, family relation, etc., as well as various conditions of sentencing indicated in the arguments and records, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence, which is the lowest sentence of punishment by law, is excessively unreasonable beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

3. 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.