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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant (i.e., confession, reflectivity, and bad health conditions of the Defendant) appear to be sufficiently considered as the grounds for sentencing of the judgment of the first instance court, and there is no fundamental change in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc. are considered again, the sentencing of the court of the first instance cannot be determined to be excessively unreasonable and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant 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.