2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health class, the lower court, based on various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, determined the sentence, and did not find any new circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In addition, even if considering all factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is groundless.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the third party of the judgment below

1. It shall be corrected that the upper line of concurrent crimes add “1. The choice of each sentence of imprisonment without prison labor" to the upper line.