2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her own criminal act, and the amount of damage (230,

However, there is a history of criminal punishment more than two times, including the defendant's punishment for the so-called crime without prison labor, and in particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced a minor sentence than the lower limit of the recommended sentence (one year) set in the sentencing guidelines, cannot be said to be excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.