2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s previous convictions multiple times, the Defendant did not know even during the period of suspension of execution, and led to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s reflectivity, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the Council of Victims, etc., respectively.

In addition to the above circumstances, the court below takes into account the fact that the defendant did not faithfully observe the protective observation during the period of suspension of execution, such as failing to comply with the direction of the person in charge of observing the protective observation.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no reason for the appeal of the defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That there is an omission of choice of punishment among the parts applied by the law of the court below, which is obvious that this is due to mistake, and therefore, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ① "the choice of punishment and the choice of punishment" at the end of the fourth sentence of the original judgment, ② at the end of the fifth sentence of the original judgment, ② at the end of the fifth sentence of the first judgment, the "each choice of imprisonment" is corrected