2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the favorable circumstances that the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant, the court below set the punishment against the defendant in consideration of the defendant's injury to the victim who is the old and the weak, and the criminal records of the same kind and the same repeated crime (not less than twice suspended execution).

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.