Judgment

The lower court, based on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, determined a sentence within the scope of recommended punishment by the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, considering the following: (i) there is a significant nature of the crime in light of the applicable law and frequency of the instant crime; and (ii) the fact that the Defendant had been punished 11 times for the same kind of crime but has not completed the execution of the final sentence, and thus again commits the same veterinary act; (iii) there is no significant damage from the instant crime; and (iv) the fact that some damage was returned; and (v) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it.

The sentencing of the court below seems to have been determined appropriately by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that are different from the sentencing conditions of the court below until the trial is held.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relations, criminal records, criminal records, the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable to escape from the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. 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 groundless.