2. Determination

A. 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). B.

On January 31, 2019, the lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant in consideration of the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant was punished several times for the same type of crime; and (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was under repeated crime period after having completed the execution of punishment for the same type of crime; (c) the number of crimes by the Defendant was committed once more; (d) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim; (e) the Defendant did not have reached an agreement with the victim; (e) the degree of damage did not exceed the extent of damage (the victim stated that one of the damaged Nowon-North Korea was old No. 300; and (e) the Defendant’s mistake was

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and even considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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