2. 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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the highest risk of each crime in the judgment; (b) the Defendant’s record of repeated offense; and (c) the possibility of recidivism, are significant; and (d) the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s assertion are deemed to have been sufficiently taken into account as the grounds for sentencing in the judgment of the first instance; and (b) there is no change in

[In the trial, the defendant's intention to improve his personality and conduct (such as mental health and treatment) is not verified at all. Even if the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered, it shall not be determined that the sentencing of the court of the first instance is too excessive and goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.