2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 35 and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is clearly obvious that “(within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above two crimes)” was erroneously stated in Article 35 of the Criminal Act on the part of 3-2 of the lower judgment, and that “(within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above two crimes) was omitted at the end of the same five parallels, so it is corrected to correct