2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances for the Defendant: (a) when the Defendant was in a trial, all of his/her mistakes are recognized and reflected; (b) the Defendant has no criminal records exceeding the same criminal records and fines; and (c) the fact that there is no good health.

On the other hand, each of the crimes committed by the Defendant is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) it is extremely bad to the quality of the crime in light of the method of the crime and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc.; (b) it has not been fully recovered despite being given considerable opportunity to recover damage after each of the crimes in this case; (c) it has not been used by the victim; and (d) it has not been used by the victim; and (c) the victim has not been punished by severe punishment against the Defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.