2. Determination

A. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, as seen above.

In full view of all the circumstances that serve as conditions for sentencing in this court, the judgment of the court below was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion, or there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, even if the sentencing grounds revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, etc., are comprehensively taken into account, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. In this case, the determination of ex officio related to the employment restriction order under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities should be made pursuant to Article 59-3(1) of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities. It is determined that there are special circumstances where the lower court should not issue an employment restriction order for welfare facilities for persons with disabilities for the same reason as the lower court revealed

Therefore, the defendant is exempted from the employment restriction order of the welfare facilities for the disabled pursuant to the proviso of Article 59-3(1) of the Welfare Act

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.