2. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the basis of the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing conditions are not changed after the appellate court’s ex post facto heart nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance sentencing is within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the appellate court’s sentencing is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the following factors, the lower court erred by misapprehending the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s one-year sentencing period, the lower court did not change the sentencing period of the Defendant, which is in favor of or unfavorable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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