2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes of this case, the court below seems to have determined the punishment against the defendant in light of the above circumstances, there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence was made, and the defendant had been sentenced several times to criminal punishment for a violation of traffic law before the court below was sentenced. In particular, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten years on June 4, 2015 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and the records, circumstances, and how and how the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case after being sentenced to the suspended sentence, and all the circumstances of this case.

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.