2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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). In a case where the crime is committed without prejudice to the proper exercise of the penal authority and the state’s judicial function, and there is a high need to punish a person who is in danger of being subject to criminal punishment. The lower court has already been against the Defendant, taking into account the fact that the Defendant has already been against, selected as a minor fine than imprisonment, reduced confession under Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.