2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant shows an attitude against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant again turns out a vehicle that was driven at the time of the instant crime, which is favorable to the Defendant.

However, even before committing each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) which is the same kind of crime.

In particular, on August 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the Jeju District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), etc., and committed each of the crimes in this case even during the repeated crime period after the execution of the sentence was completed on April 22, 2015.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

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