2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The defendant shows his attitude to recognize and reflect the crime in this case; the defendant has no record of being subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; the defendant led to the confession of the crime in this case at the investigation stage against the person who is not the defendant; the defendant expressed his intention that he does not want the punishment of the defendant at the lower court; however, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower court, and the crime without the State’s authority to judge is extremely likely to be subject to unfair criminal punishment; the records and circumstances of the crime in this case and its age, method and scope after the criminal sentencing.

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