2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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 court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing, the court did not submit new data on sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and even if all the grounds for sentencing specified in the instant argument are comprehensive, it is not recognized that the first instance court’s sentencing was too excessive, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure; however, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, "18 years of age" in each of "17 years of age" shall be deemed "17 years of age" in each of "10 years of age" in the judgment of the court below on the grounds of sentencing, and "the defendant shall be deemed "at least ten years of age" in each of the grounds for sentencing.