2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s decision on the following grounds: (a) no new data on sentencing was submitted in the trial; and (b) no new data on sentencing was submitted.

The defendant requests the postponement of the sentencing date to reach an agreement from the original court.

In the end, there is a very poor attitude in the trial, such as escape, and the absence of the court, by submitting only a document to agree in the trial.

Although the amount of damage exceeds 270 million won, it seems that the economic and mental suffering suffered by the victim is not possible.

In addition, in full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too large.

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