“”

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by fully taking into account all the favorable sentencing factors asserted by the Defendant, and it appears that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, including the crime of different types of punishment, committed by the Defendant, who had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, and that the new sentencing materials to change the sentence of the lower court were not added at the appellate court, and there were other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

As such, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

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.