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 from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime. However, despite the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same type of crime, it is not good that the Defendant involved in the administration of phiphonephones in holding and administering phiphones, and in offering good offices for sale and purchase.

The court below determined the punishment by taking into account the economic difficulties alleged by the defendant as the grounds for appeal or the intent to terminate the contract, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below since the new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the court below. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing specified in the records and arguments in this case, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too large.

3. If so, 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.