2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and expressed the intent of reflect; and (b) the Defendant did not have the same criminal records.

However, the court of the first instance sentenced the defendant to a fine lower than the fine under the summary order issued at the beginning by taking full account of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, the sentencing of the court of the first instance cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and the circumstances after the offense.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.