2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Although the Defendant was found to have made a mistake in the first instance trial, even though the amount of damage is not so significant, the Defendant only repaid part of the amount obtained by the victim C, but did not fully recover the damage, and did not receive a letter from the victims.

The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, health status (e.g., physical disability Grade 3), economic situation (based recipients), relationship with victims, details and contents of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the party, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.