2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if 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 reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court judgment on the sole ground of the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court committed the instant crime in a planned manner, such as where the Defendant committed the instant crime, such as setting the name of the Defendant according to the table of visibility, the degree of deliberation on pictures is high, the victim’s failure to punish the Defendant, etc., and thus, did not have any change in the conditions to be newly considered in the appellate court, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant cannot be accepted.

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.