2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there exists an area unique to the first instance judgment regarding sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable circumstances in light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, as well as the circumstance alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, including the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses, and against the Defendant, was already reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no change in the special conditions of sentencing that could change the sentence of the lower court at the trial.

In full view of various circumstances, including the fact that the number of victims of the instant crime was reached 17 and the total amount of damage was significant, even though the Defendant was punished several times due to inhaled hallucinogenic substances, the Defendant re-offending the crime during the suspension period due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and contents thereof, attitude in the investigation agency and court, crime quality, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the trial at the lower court and the party deliberation, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable, since the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of its discretion.

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