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 reflects the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the thief victim is favorable to the Defendant.

However, this situation seems to be reflected in the sentencing as it appears in the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the fact that a repeated crime was committed during the period of the repeated crime, the motive and background of the crime, the means of the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, and family relations, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

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