2. In full view of all the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects in depth, that is, the Defendant could have been tried simultaneously with the instant crime before and after the judgment of the court below, and that the Defendant appears to have benefited only a part of the amount of the instant crime, but the amount of damage caused by the instant crime could not be recovered most while the amount of damage could not be recovered. However, since the instant crime was planned and closely, the nature of the instant crime was very poor, and there was no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below, and there is no other change in the character and conduct of the Defendant, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendant is adequate.

Therefore, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.