2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes in this case; the defendant has agreed with some victims; the defendant was diagnosed to the effect that mental health problems, such as physical disorder, mental disorder, etc.; however, the court below appears to have determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the above circumstances; there was no change in circumstances that could be considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below; the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times, such as property damage, obstruction of duties, and violation of ordinary crimes; the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in this case; and the defendant's motive and punishment of each of the crimes in this case after 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.