2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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 court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the judgment of the first instance court is somewhat different (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the first instance court, and the sentence of the first instance court is within the scope of the discretion of sentencing granted to the lower court, and it cannot be said that the said sentence is reasonable and unfair because it is too unreasonable due to the lack of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “Article 2(2), 2(1)3, and 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” is “Article 2(2)3 and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act”.