2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, as seen above.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the original court’s punishment.

In addition, even if the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. In this case, determination of ex officio on an employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities shall be made pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. This part of the lower court omitted

However, in this case where only the defendant appealed, since the punishment more unfavorable than the original judgment cannot be changed to the defendant in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the original judgment should not be reversed on this ground.

(3) The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the final appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.