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 on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake, determined the sentence by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, the Defendant’s operation of marina, and the payment of goods to many workers and suppliers, the amount of which is not significant, and the victims did not recover sufficient damage. As the new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial, there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and even considering all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive, and thus, cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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 under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.