2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the reflection of gender, the cooperation in investigation, and the imprisonment with prison labor for which the suspended sentence is invalidated and suspended as a result of the suspended sentence in the decision of the court below should also be imposed) seems to have already been considered in the course of sentencing in the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

The Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, as well as the investigation and trial process of the previous conviction in the judgment of the court below, immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment.

In addition, taking into account the circumstances cited by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, even if considering the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. revealed in the arguments of the lower court and the political party, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it goes beyond 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.