2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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, and the defendant has to support his family members who are disabled persons. However, the court below seems to have determined the punishment against the defendant, and there is no change in circumstances to be considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and the defendant had a history of being subject to criminal punishment more than 13 times in total due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) or a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without permission), and there is no reasonable motive and scope of the defendant's punishment after the suspended sentence, and all of the crimes in this case's circumstances after the suspended sentence were sentenced to each of 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.