2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

As to the instant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and the Defendant continues to comply with the order to treat wastes more than nine times, taking full account of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, and the fact that there was a history of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.