2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists a unique area of the first instance in the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s decision because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing compared with that of the lower court, and when considering all the reasons for sentencing presented by the lower court, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive and exceeded

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

The first chapter “the office of the defendant” is clearly written by mistake, so it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure that “the office of the defendant is corrected by correcting it to “the office of the defendant’s head office in Maurel L in Thai-si.”