2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment as to sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from reversing the first instance judgment on the sole basis of the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s submission of new data on sentencing in the first instance trial, and the lower court’s judgment did not recognize that the first instance judgment is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the reasons for sentencing and all the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record and the trial process of this case.

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.