2. The lower court rendered the above sentence, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized most of the mistakes; (b) the victims of interference with duties and the victims of special injuries who wish not to be punished against the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant has many records of having been punished for the same kind of crime; (d) the Defendant started to commit a crime only 20 days from the completion of the execution of the first head sentence stated in the judgment; (c) the number of times of the crimes was high; (d) the nature of the crimes is not good in light of the applicable law of each crime; and (e) the police officers were able to have expressed desire to commit a crime; and (e) the lower court rendered the above sentence, taking into account the fact that there is no reflective nature by the police officers, such as disputing the charges

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to a crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, other than the circumstances that take into account the unfavorable circumstances as above, there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, and all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, means and consequence, the sentence imposed on the Defendant is deemed appropriate, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

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.