2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the fact that the Defendant has a history of having been punished several times for the same crime and constitutes a same repeated crime, and there is no effort to recover the victims’ damage, etc., the Defendant requires a strict punishment and there is no new change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the defendant's age, contents of the crime, living environment, health status, family relation, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (from April to June), as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the punishment imposed by the court below is not hot since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, 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.