2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in a case where 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.). Even though the Defendant was aware that the Defendant agreed to the victims and the victims, there is a change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in light of the fact that the instant crime constitutes a repeated offense, and that the Defendant committed a violation of discipline within the detention house even though the Defendant was in the trial, according to the materials submitted in the first instance court,

It is difficult to see it.

When comprehensively taking into account such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, and circumstances leading to the instant case as revealed in the hearing of the lower court and the political party’s deliberation, the lower court that sentenced the instant crime to the maximum punishment (six months of imprisonment) within the applicable sentencing range by reducing the amount of punishment after adding repeated offenses and adding concurrent offenses to the instant crime, is deemed to have exceeded, or to have exceeded, the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. Accordingly, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.