2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if 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 reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole basis of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials were not submitted in the trial, and the sentencing of the lower court is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the first instance court is too large, considering all of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing in the instant records and arguments

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure: Provided, That the court below’s correction of each mountainous district management act as “the former mountainous district management act (amended by Act No. 14361, Dec. 2, 2016)” in the application of the statutes of the court below pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is corrected.