2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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 Defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime two times only, and the Defendant has been punished for the same crime, and in particular, even one month has not yet passed since he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to a habitual crime committed by a crime committed without prison labor, and thus, the Defendant constitutes a repeated crime of the same kind as he/she again committed the instant crime.

As long as the defendant repeats a crime despite the continued punishment of the defendant, it is inevitable to severely punish him/her.

If there is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below in the trial at the court below, and comprehensively takes into account the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, living environment, the amount of damage, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence that the court below made is done within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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.