2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant was examined in light of the foregoing; (b) the fact that the Defendant was admitted to commit the crime as indicated in the judgment; and (c) the fact that the victim

However, the defendant committed a crime that did not reach one month after the completion of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to the same crime, and the defendant committed a real reflective act, such as there was no change of behavior at all even though he was sentenced to a minor fine in most cases since he committed a crime in the past several times.

It is difficult to see the defendant's intention to improve his character and behavior because he received future alcohol treatment, and it is difficult to find out the defendant's intention to improve his character and behavior, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court because a new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial; (b) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime were committed; and (d) the sentencing of the court of the first instance is too excessive and is not determined to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.