2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it appears that the circumstances alleged by the Defendant were sufficiently taken into account as the grounds for sentencing of the judgment of the first instance court, and that there was no new sentencing data that can be deemed that fundamental changes have occurred in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court.

In addition, considering the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence, the circumstances after the offense, etc., as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the sentencing of the court of first instance cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant 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.

(However, since each judgment of the first instance court omitted a list of offenses, it shall be corrected by adding ex officio each list of offenses in the annexed Form of this judgment pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, as the list of offenses is added.