2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). The instant crime ought to be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the equity between the case of receiving a judgment at the same time as the case of special larceny for which the judgment became final and conclusive, should be considered.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant, in a professional manner, assisted the acquisition of stolen vehicles, and two months after being released from the crime of this case due to special larceny, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

The court below set a punishment by comprehensively taking into account the above circumstances, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, environment, and method of crime, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted 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.