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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant (such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s favorable circumstances (such as the reflection of mistake; (b) the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim; (c) the fact that the Defendant was covered by a comprehensive insurance; and (d) there is a dependent who suffers from a certificate of depression for the Defendant) appears to be sufficiently considered as the grounds for sentencing in the judgment of the lower court.

There is no new circumstance that can be assessed.

In addition, considering the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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