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 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). The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime under the pretext of the confession and counter-gradation, the Defendant discharged a part of the amount of damage under the name of interest, etc., and the mutual relation between the criminal record and the crime in the judgment of the final judgment is deemed to have been considered as concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but the above favorable circumstances are deemed to have already been considered in most of the lower judgment, and there are no new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that could reduce the sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court, the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively leaving excessive discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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