2. 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). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

Although the defendant is under the period of suspension of execution for the same crime, he is highly likely to repeatedly commit the crime of this case.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal appear to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, such as character and conduct, environment, health conditions (non-quality mental disorder and mental disorder), motive, means and consequence of a crime, circumstances after a crime, etc. as shown in the deliberation of the original court and the party concerned, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as a whole, the sentence of the original court shall not be deemed to have exceeded, or to have exceeded, the reasonable scope of discretion and be unfair.

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.