2. The judgment is based on the following facts: although the Defendant recognized the crime and is against the Defendant, and the thief is relatively minor, the Defendant was subject to 10 times criminal punishment due to the thief and robbery; the crime of this case also was repeated during the period of repeated crime due to intrusion upon residence at night; the injury was recovered or was not agreed with the victims; the lower court determined the lowest sentence sentence for the sentencing guidelines compared with the first instance court; where there is no change in the sentencing conditions and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015); and where the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s age and health, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions expressed in pleadings after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed unfair for the lower court to have imposed the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (as to the costs of lawsuit, the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply).