2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists a unique area of the first instance judgment regarding sentencing. In addition, in light of the ex post facto core nature, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment differs from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principle, the lower court’s reasonable scope of discretion is not recognized, considering that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance trial, and that the first instance judgment’s sentencing judgment is beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing discretion.

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.