2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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 Defendant committed the instant crime, even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, once imprisonment with prison labor, once suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, and 13 times fines). In particular, the Defendant constitutes a repeated crime, even when he/she was released from prison by being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to a crime committed by integment, thereby constituting the instant crime.

In addition, considering various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, health status, and scale of damage, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not heavy, even if considering the circumstances in which the Defendant discharged damage to the victims, within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.