2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court rendered the sentence to the Defendant on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court did not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s recidivism during the period of probation; (b) the Defendant’s failure to agree with the victims; (c) the degree of damage was relatively large; and (d) there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime; and (c) there was no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime; and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the

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.