2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). B.

The court below held that since the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, equality with the case where judgment is to be taken into account; the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's crime is highly harmful to the defendant's victim's victim's victim's victim's economic interest due to the defendant's act, even though she was aiding and abetting in aiding and abetting act, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's participation level is less severe; the defendant's defendant's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's act was committed under law.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other change in the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive for the crime, and after the crime.