2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the following factors, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original court’s new sentencing data, and considering the factors revealed in the oral proceedings of this case, it is too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.