2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the conflict of interest, the agreement with the victim, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

Considering the Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, including the fact that the crime of this case was committed during the period of suspension of execution for the same kind of crime, as well as the fact that it was committed during the period of suspension of execution, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s health condition into account, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even in light of the Defendant’s health condition.

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