2. The lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant that the Defendant did not agree with the victim C, D, and E, took into account the fact that the Defendant led to the instant crime, committed against himself, and that the savings bank considering the victim Co., Ltd. did not want punishment, respectively, under favorable circumstances, and determined a sentence by taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, such as equity in the case where the judgment was rendered concurrently with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (i.e., an escape vehicle) and a violation of Road Traffic Act (motor vehicle) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and equity in the case where the judgment was rendered concurrently with the Defendant’

The grounds for the court below's unfair sentencing (the defendant reflects the crime of this case, the defendant's dependents, and the victim's agreement, etc.) alleged by the defendant are shown to be the reasons for the court below's determination of the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions change in the court below's above sentencing conditions.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.