2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

As to the instant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data have not been submitted in the health team and the trial court, and even though the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime and the crime, he again committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period due to the same kind of crime, and in full view of the sentencing factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to say that the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive and so the Defendant’s assertion 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.