2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, 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 to recognize and reflect each of the of the of the crimes in this case, and the defendant has received mental treatment from around 2011 due to extreme disorder, etc. However, the court below appears to have determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and in light of the circumstance, contents and method of each of the crimes in this case, there is no change in circumstances that are considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, the victims' damages are not recovered properly, even if the defendant had a record of criminal punishment for violence, and the circumstances and motive of each of the crime in this case.

3. In conclusion, 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.