2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). A change in the sentencing conditions in the lower court’s trial is made in the first instance court.

As the sentencing data is not submitted, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the following: (a) the Defendant committed the larceny of this case again during the period of repeated crime even though he had already been sentenced eight times due to the same type of larceny; (b) the Defendant committed the larceny again during the period of repeated crime; (c) the Defendant committed the robbery by assaulting the victim 61 years old; and (d) many victims were punished against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant committed the robbery; (c) the Defendant committed the robbery; and (d) the Defendant committed the robbery by assaulting the victim 61 years old; and (d) the Defendant committed the criminal punishment against the Defendant; (e) the Defendant’s infinite growth environment; and (e) the Defendant was experiencing some victims, who did not want the punishment against the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy or unreasonable to the extent that it has

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.