2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the court below in the court below. In particular, the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime, and the court below did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of the court below's sentencing because it is too large, considering all sentencing factors indicated in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., in light of the fact that the court below sentenced the minimum punishment by discretionary mitigation.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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