2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance 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 stated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal are deemed to have already been considered in the course of sentencing of the lower court.

It is necessary to punish a defendant who is a repeated crime of the same kind of crime with heavy punishment, and there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., as shown in such circumstances, and the deliberation of the original court and the party, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the original court 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.