2. Where there is no change in the 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). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

In light of the contents of the letter of this case sent by the defendant in the detention house, the victims appear to have been suffering from serious fear for a considerable period of time, and the defendant is likely to be subject to criticism by committing a crime on May 3, 2017 even after the investigation is commenced, and constitutes a repeated crime due to special larceny, etc.

Although the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want the punishment of the defendant in the trial of the party, it is difficult to regard it as a change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, as shown in the deliberation and arguments of the court below and the party concerned, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.