2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s punishment deviates from the reasonable scope of discretion, and it goes against the Defendant’s reasonable scope of discretion, by taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not return a bank to the victim; and (b) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim; and (c) the Defendant did not return it to the victim; and (d) the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim.

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