2. Determination

A. The lower court, comprehensively taking into account the various unfavorable circumstances against the Defendant, determined the Defendant’s punishment within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing is made after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Even though the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentencing of the first instance falls within the scope of the appellate court’s opinion is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below is assessed.

(c)

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

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.