2. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there are unique areas of the court of first instance regarding the determination of sentencing, and in light of the ex post facto and aesthetic nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the court of first instance, and the sentencing of the court of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. It is desirable to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the sentencing of the court of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the examination and trial.

In particular, the defendant emphasizes the confession and reflectness of the defendant, return of damaged goods, non-influence of certain victims, and an influence of the defendant in the trial. However, the court below seems to have determined 10 months of imprisonment in consideration of this.

In full view of the criminal records, repeated crimes, and the conditions of the sentencing indicated in the records when the court below determines punishment, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and exceeded 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 ground that the defendant's appeal is groundless.