2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined within an ex post facto and appropriate scope, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition to the fact that there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, even if the sentencing stated by the lower court is in excess of the Defendant’s endeavor with the victim and the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.