2. Determination

A. The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, should respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s recognition of all of the instant crimes and reflects mistake; (b) the Defendant committed an agreement with the principal victim; and (c) the Defendant’s record of having been punished for the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crimes during the period of suspension of execution; and (b) the sentence becomes effective upon the sentence; and (c) the sentence was imposed by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime.

(c)

The grounds for the court below's improper sentencing alleged by the defendant are shown to have already taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the court below.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.