2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the sentencing of the court of first instance is not unfair because of the lack of new sentencing data in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommendations based on the sentencing guidelines, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court of first instance is too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.