2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the confession and rebuttal, the damage amount, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

In addition, the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment for the same crime several times, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes repeatedly against many victims during the repeated crime period, and did not reach an agreement with the victims or victims until the trial.

Furthermore, the punishment of 1 year and 6 months sentenced by the court below is derived from the reduced sentence of 2 years, which is the lowest statutory penalty for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, of which punishment is the largest among the crimes in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime committed by the defendant as shown in the argument of the court below and the party hearing, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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