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’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was 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. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit. The Defendant’s appeal of KRW 120,000,000,000,000 in cash located within the victim’s Bara-Ba, which is the victim’s possession, does not constitute “A” in the judgment of the court below.

Since it is apparent that “A” is a clerical error, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.