2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court took into account the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant’s favorable to the Defendant: (i) the Defendant is deeply divided and reflects each of the instant crimes; (ii) the degree of the Defendant’s taking away at the time of drinking; (iii) the Defendant does not incur human and physical harm; (iv) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment except for those recorded in the judgment of the lower court; (v) the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for eight months due to the instant crime; (v) the Defendant was subject to the revocation of the suspended sentence for the above reasons; (v) the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for more than six years; and (v) the Defendant’s efforts to keep the Defendant’s family from committing the instant crime from being subject to criminal punishment.

The sentencing of the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing.