2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances and arguments, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive, even if the Defendant was subject to a fine twice during the period of a repeated crime resulting from the same crime and was sentenced to a fine during the period of a repeated crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime at the time of the lapse of the said repeated period, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, given that there were no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing in the trial. In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

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.