2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

The sentence of the court below constitutes the lowest sentence among the scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court (one hundred months to two years), and there is no new circumstance that can change the sentence of the court below in the court below in addition to the circumstances that the court below rendered.

In addition, considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court seems to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition

(However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "the latter part of Article 37 and the first part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act" are clear that it is a clerical error and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure