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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In general, the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial (the Defendant submitted the details of damage reimbursement in the first instance trial, but it appears to be related materials to the details already repaid prior to the pronouncement of the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court determined a sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances with the victims) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.