2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds asserted by the defendant in this court as the elements of sentencing are already discovered in the hearing process of the court below, or are sufficiently taken into account in determining the sentence against the defendant, and there is no change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with regard to the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the court below

When the court below comprehensively takes into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, method and circumstance after the crime, and the range of recommended sentencing guidelines, the sentencing of the court below is too unfair because it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the circumstances where the defendant is able to pay the sentencing guidelines.

Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. 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 groundless.