2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, if the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and if 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 reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court judgment on the sole ground of the difference between the view of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court on the grounds that new sentencing materials are not submitted in the trial, and the defendant has the history of having been subject to criminal punishment twice including the punishment twice by committing the crime of the same kind and the fact that the crime of this case was committed after the completion of the sentence, and all of the records and reasons of the present judgment are found to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.