2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime, and agreed with the victims.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed without being aware of the Defendant, who was in the period of repeated crime, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, and it is not good that the crime of this case was committed in the same manner as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, 2018 Godan1316.

Since there are many violences in the defendant, it seems that the defendant's attitude is very important in terms of law.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, motive for committing the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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