2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). The lower court determined a sentence by comprehensively taking account of all the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant, and there is no change of circumstances in matters that are conditions for sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of all the elements of sentencing as indicated in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances, age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect it as it is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal 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.

However, in the application of the law of the lower court, the phrase “the pertinent provision of the Act on the 1. Criminal Procedure” in the “Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act” is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “Article 148-2(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act before it was amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018.” Thus, the ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the

.