2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal (a confession and reflectivity, living-type crimes, respect for alcohol, recipients of basic living, ex post facto concurrent crimes, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s criminal history, the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, the amount of damage incurred in this case, etc., as well as the character and conduct of the Defendant, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair by exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.