2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal (such as the confession, reflectivity, support for the elderly, social service activities, health status, social ties, prevention of recurrence, and simple administration and possession of philophone, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the court below and the party, the sentence of the court below is too unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it cannot be deemed unfair (the defendant has invested a large amount in a specific business. The defendant argued that the defendant was discovered by having the defendant commit the crime of this case by having the defendant committed a so-called "work" as planned by the above business operator who has contributed to the investment. However, the defendant is deemed to have received a gift from Vietnam around 2007 at the time of the prosecutor's investigation. In light of the fact that the defendant stated that the phiphonephone was possessed and administered again in the house located in the Northwest-gun, the court below's decision is difficult to believe in light of the fact that the defendant's appeal was groundless, and thus, it is dismissed as per Disposition under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.