2. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant.

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.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

[In the instant case, determination of whether to issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for disabled persons pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act (Act No. 15904, Dec. 11, 2018) and Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act was omitted in the lower court. However, in the instant case where only the Defendant appealed, the lower court did not change the sentence unfavorable to the Defendant pursuant to the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change, and thus, the lower judgment should not be reversed on this ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16734, Dec. 22, 20