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 and aesthetic 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 imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not change in the terms of sentencing compared with the lower court’s decision because new data on sentencing were not submitted in the first instance trial, and the Defendant has the power to be punished four times in the same kind of crime, the frequency of the first instance judgment’s sentencing recommendation and all the sentencing criteria of the lower court.

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.