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 it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, in light of the following circumstances: (a) based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant committed the instant crime again despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime, and (b) the Defendant was less responsible for such crime; and (c) the victim E was not recovered from the damage; (b) the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant; (c) the victim C’s damage was partially returned; and (d) the above victim was not punished; and (d) the Defendant’s punishment was determined on the grounds of other various sentencing factors, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by making it too unreasonable, considering the overall consideration of the sentencing factors expressed in the pleading process of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.