2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court: (a) under favorable circumstances, based on the aforementioned circumstances, such as the following: (b) the Defendant led to an offense; (c) the Defendant was not guilty; (d) the nature of the offense was bad in light of the content of the offense; (d) the amount of damage was large; (e) the victim was not recovered; and (e) the victim did not agree with the victim; (e) there was no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court in the first instance court; and (e) considering the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive for the offense; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed to have excessively discretionary discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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