2. The lower court determined the sentencing by fully taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim. In full view of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had a history of criminal punishment several times of a same kind of crime, and other circumstances that form conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

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

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