2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. It is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, supra, that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s decision because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial (if it is difficult to reduce health conditions, such as poorness, etc., such reason may be considered in the execution of the sentence, or if it is not recognized in full view of the records and scope of the criminal discretion of the lower court.

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.