2. In a case where there is no change in the 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). As new sentencing data have not been submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and circumstances in which the Defendant alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing are considered to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court. The Defendant has the same criminal history, in particular, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated offense due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed fraud while being investigated as a suspicion of interference with duties, and the Defendant committed assault during the judgment of the lower court of this case, and in full view of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it does not exceed 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.