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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant spiting the Defendant’s intent against the children of eight years of age in the apartment elevator, and was spiting the Defendant’s money inside. As the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.