2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the victim submitted a written application to seek the victim’s preference at the trial of the party. However, since the court below also stated that the victim was the Defendant’s wife and considered it in sentencing, it cannot be deemed a new sentencing data, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below’s decision because the new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial of the party, and the sentencing reasons specified in the records and arguments of this case are considered to be excessive and thus, the sentencing of the court below is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, 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.