2. In a case where 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, and (b) the Defendant was against the Defendant.

However, the Defendant had the record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and did not have completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern Detention House, which again led to each of the crimes in this case. In light of the period and frequency of the crime, the nature of the crime is extremely poor, the damage has not been recovered properly, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court below because new sentencing data have not been submitted at the trial, and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, do not seem to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below is excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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

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.