2. The judgment is a favorable condition, such as the fact that the defendant was waiting for committing the instant crime, and misunderstandings the wrong, and that there is a family member to support and the distance of actual driving is relatively short.

However, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is not revealed that there was no special circumstance to change the sentencing ex post facto, and the lower court’s sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are comprehensively taken into account, comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the lower court’s sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s environment, motive and consequence of the crime; and (b) the lower court’s degree of punishment, which goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.