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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the court below determined the punishment for the defendant by taking into account the facts that the defendant recognized and reflected the crime, and the amount of damage (80,000 won) did not reach an agreement with the victim in favorable circumstances. The circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the defendant and his defense counsel in the trial seem to have already been considered by the court below while determining the punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal 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.