2. In a case where there is no change in the 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). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (i) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (ii) the nature of the offense was serious; (iii) the damage was not recovered; and (iv) the fact that the damage was not recovered; (iv) the circumstance favorable; (v) the recognition of and reflects the Defendant’s mistake; (iv) the need for actual hospitalization during the period of the Defendant’s hospitalization; and (v) the fact that there is no history of punishment prior to the instant crime; and (v) the Defendant’s age, character, and health condition; and (v) the overall sentencing conditions indicated in the record.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope by fully taking into account the above conditions of the sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that make it difficult to assess differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial. Thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.