The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel withdrawn the misapprehension of legal principles during the third trial of this court.

2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were already revealed in the proceedings of pleadings by the lower court. There is no change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with respect to the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court as the grounds for sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since it is clear that "the supplier" in attached Table 2 of the judgment below is a clerical error of "supplier", the defendant's appeal is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.