2. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the second instance court, in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court on the ground that the sentence of sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed a crime several times repeatedly, and the amount of damage therefrom was not significant, the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated period of offense by the same kind of crime, the victims of the crime committed the second instance judgment, the Defendants’ age reaches the age limit, and the Defendant’s reflects gender, etc., within the reasonable scope of discretion and the Defendant’s reasonable scope of sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.