2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant recognized the instant crime by taking account of the foregoing, but this does not appear to have been a special change of circumstances that could change the punishment as determined by the lower court in the trial. In full view of the various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable.

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.