2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has the inherent area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in the instant case, there is no particular change in the conditions of sentencing because new sentencing data are not submitted at the health team and the trial court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing as to the instant case’s age, sex, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there is no reason to file an appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “Application of the Act and subordinate statutes” of the judgment below on the last day of “Article 25(1) of the relevant Act on the criminal facts of 1.”