2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials on sentencing have not been submitted to the Defendant in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court, and even considering various factors, including various circumstances considered in the sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem to be too unreasonable.

In particular, this is more so taking into account the fact that the degree of assault by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case was not somewhat weak, and that the crime of this case requires strict legal order and strict punishment in order to eradicate light of public authority.

Therefore, 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 grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.