The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, all the facts charged that the Defendant led to the trial before the trial but all the charges that the Defendant had been denied were led to the trial; however, additional measures to have the Defendant wear an electronic tracking device’s body is aimed at protecting the people from specific crimes, and it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is mitigated when considering the risk of recidivism by the Defendant.

In addition, the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s health condition, which the Defendant asserts as the grounds for appeal, have already been determined by fully taking account of the circumstances in the original trial, and considering all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments in this case, the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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