2. In a case 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, etc.). The circumstance where the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime is recognized.

However, the lower court appears to have determined a sentence in consideration of such favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly despite the fact that the Defendant had been already punished at least eight times (six times of punishment, six times of punishment, and two times of suspended execution) for the same kind of crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 groundless.