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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new materials for sentencing in the trial; and (b) the circumstances alleged as the grounds for sentencing were already reflected in the lower court’s sentencing; (c) there are two cases where the Defendant was sentenced to punishment for the same crime; (d) there are two times the past records of violent crimes; and (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was committed while the period of repeated offense was in force; and (e) the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, the 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.