2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was sentenced to a lower sentence, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing factors in the trial process of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant has been punished several times for the same type of crime; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes at the same time during the period of repeated crime; and (c) the Defendant was not recovered from the goods recovered at the time of arrest of flagrant offender; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

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