2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as: (a) the defendant led to the death of the party; (b) the confession of the crime of this case; (c) the victim recovered KRW 600,000 out of the amount of damage; and (d) the defendant has no criminal history exceeding the same power and fine

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have taken the victim by deceiving him/her even though he/she does not have an intent or ability to fit the stem cell injection. In light of the contents of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, most damage is not yet recovered in light of the substance of the crime, our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, where there exists the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing in comparison with the first trial, and where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the first deliberation sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The favorable circumstances for the defendant recognized above do not fall under any special change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below was sentenced, and in consideration of the overall circumstances, which are the conditions of the sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, etc.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “a summary of evidence” of the lower judgment ex officio is added to the “a summary of evidence” column.