2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and environment, the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant was punished several times for the same kind of crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime within the period of repeated crime of the same kind; and (c) the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim up to the trial; and (d) the victim was b.80 million won.

Therefore, 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.