2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

(Ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the “the point of special assault” of the judgment of the court below No. 2, 15 is deemed to be “the point of special assault,” and the “the point of special assault” of the 15 to 16th is deemed to be “the point of special assault,” and the “the special assault” of the 18th is deemed to be “the crime of special assault,” respectively.