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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances, and further seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court, including the self-denunciation of the Defendant.

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

Considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and the contents thereof (a repeated crime period due to the same criminal act), the attitude and nature of the offense in investigation agencies and courts, the motive, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.