2. The lower court: (a) comprehensively taking account of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects on the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for the same type of crimes; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated crime period; and (c) the victims failed to obtain a letter of suspicion; and (d) determined a sentence at the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidelines, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to be the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account when determining the Defendant’s punishment. The lower court’s punishment is reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the said sentencing conditions have been changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted, since the court below's punishment is too heavy.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.