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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account all favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no change in circumstances that change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In full view of the statutory punishment for the crime of forging a letter of intent in this case and the crime of uttering of a falsified document, perjury, the fact that the defendant has the record of punishment due to the crime of perjury, fraud, and other factors, the judgment of the court below does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument during the sentencing.

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