2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court 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 first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive and beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, when comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) the health care room for the instant case; (b) the Defendant denied part of the instant crime at the lower court; and (c) the Defendant has been recognized the entire amount of the instant crime at the time of the first instance trial; (d) it does not appear to have changed in circumstances to the extent that the lower court would change its sentencing; and (e) it does not appear to have changed in circumstances to the extent that the lower court did not submit new sentencing data; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

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.