2. In comparison with the first instance court, there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing, and in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant has a variety of records of the same kind, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again at the time when the execution of the sentence was completed due to the fact that the Defendant had been completed, and that there was no change in the extent of damage, such as the use of stolen credit cards at least 10 times, but no damage has been restored until now.

In light of such overall circumstances, the lower court determined a punishment, and there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, motive and background, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. 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.