Judgment

It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the 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 the sentencing of the first instance court. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and impose a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, considering that no new sentencing data was submitted in the health class, the lower court did not change the conditions of sentencing, and there was no change in the conditions of sentencing, and there was no particular effort to recover damage from the victims until now, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence that sentenced two years and six months within the scope of the recommended sentencing based on the sentencing guidelines is too unreasonable to the extent that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as there is no reason to appeal.