2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, this is more so taking into account the fact that the defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed without being aware of the fact that the defendant had been committed during the period of repeated crime, and that there has not been a letter from the victims

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the defendant in the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court below under paragraph (1) of the same Article is a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make a decision due to the following mental illness and is in the state of lacking capacity to discern things and make a decision, and the "in addition," in the second sentence, the "in addition," in the second sentence, and the "in addition," in the second sentence, the "victims" in the second sentence, 11, 12, 15, and 17 are corrected to "victims D"