2. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the basis of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed after the appellate court’s ex post facto heart nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s decision is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on the following factors, considered the sentencing conditions favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant, and all other circumstances provided for in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the lower court did not have any special change in the sentencing of the Defendant.

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

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