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, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and expressed his/her anti-discrimination; (b) the spouse and children to support the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding the same criminal records and fines.

However, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the first instance court cannot be deemed unfair because the Defendant’s sentencing goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is excessively unreasonable. The first instance court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.