2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is pened by himself; (b) the driving of a motor bicycle with relatively less dangerous danger than a motor vehicle; and (c) the Defendant’s health status is not good; (d) the Defendant has the same power; (c) the Defendant is a criminal during the period of repeated offense; and (d) the drinking water is also high.

In light of the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and the sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, reputation, character and conduct, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., do not seem to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.