2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that “each photograph or image output” in the final judgment of the court below, which is the main text of the evidence, was added by mistake, and it is apparent that “1. G’s police statement report” was omitted by mistake in the column for the examination of evidence, and thus, it is apparent that it was deleted and added ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1)