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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, in which the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and recognized each of the instant crimes.

However, the Defendant had the record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and again, during the repeated crime period and frequency of special assault, and the quality of the crime was extremely poor in light of the period and frequency of the crime, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing data has not been submitted at the trial time. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be unfair because it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

3. In conclusion, 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.