2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. However, among the judgment below, “D and the Defendant,” each of the “D, K, and the Defendant” is a clerical error in each of the “D, K, and the Defendant,” and the “Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act” of the column 2 and the “Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act,” following the “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure,” and thus, it is apparent that the “Article 30 of the Criminal Act was erroneously added, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.