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 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 to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, does not seem to have 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

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the “the choice of a punishment and the choice of a punishment” under Article 17 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and the “each choice of imprisonment” under Article 18 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall be deleted, and Article 40, Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be applied after

1. If a penalty is corrected by adding "the choice of each sentence of imprisonment";

.