2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the degree of physical strength at the time of the instant crime is relatively less favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes, etc., and was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution on October 24, 2014 due to the violation of the Emergency Medical Service Act, etc., on November 1, 2014, the Defendant committed the instant crime of the same kind without being aware of the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 1, 2014, and was in existence for the suspension period.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the process of the trial and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unfair.

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.