2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below 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). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the reflection of the situation, the degree of damage, etc.) is relatively minor is considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In full view of comprehensively taking into account the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, even if considering the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and is thus unreasonable, considering comprehensively the following: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crimes; and (b) the Defendant committed again during the period of repeated crimes; and (c) the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence

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.