2. Where there is no change in the terms and 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.). Defendant is 2016

4. 1. A person who was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for the same crime and completed the execution of the sentence on August 4, 2016 falls under the crime of this case and constitutes a repeated crime, and has the record of having been punished six times of larceny (two times of imprisonment, one time of suspended execution of imprisonment, and three times of fine).

From three victims, a theft of a credit card was committed on a chain basis by using it without permission, and most stolen credit cards were used for the settlement of entertainment expenses.

As the victims have not recovered from damage caused by each of the crimes of this case, they want to be punished by the defendant.

If there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and comprehensively takes into account the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family environment, motive for committing a crime and circumstances after committing a crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the punishment of the court below is done within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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.