2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court: (a) not only has the record of a fine of several times due to a crime related to assault, imprisonment, suspension of execution, or imprisonment with prison labor, but also four months have not passed since the Defendant was released from the criminal record as indicated in the judgment of the lower court; (b) the victim suffering from weak mental delay is expressed in the name of the victim; (c) the victim was committed by using serious violence, such as the birth of the head of the used victim; (d) the victim did not seriously go against his own fault; and (e) the victim did not seek sufficient statements to the victim; and (e) the Defendant did not have any effort to return profits from the crime at all times; and (e) considered the motive and circumstances leading up to all contingent charges of the Defendant.

As above, the sentencing of the court below appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is. Thus, the court below’s punishment is too heavy or unhued so that it is unfair.