2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is advantageous to the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, the amount of damage is not very significant, and part of the wallets, which is the damaged part, was returned to the victim and partly recovered from damage.

However, the fact that the defendant was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime has seven times or more, and that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he was sentenced to a fine by the court once again during the period of repeated crime due to the same type of crime, he committed the crime of this case even though he was sentenced to a fine by the court, and that the victims want to punish the defendant because it did not reach an agreement with the victims.

The court below appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed reasonable, and it cannot be deemed unfair by excessively exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 groundless.