2. It is recognized that the defendant recognized his/her misconduct as a juvenile and reflected his/her misconduct, that the defendant has grown in an infinite environment, and that part of the victims have been compensated and agreed in the trial.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) most of the instant cases committed by several persons who take part in a specific role; (b) the nature of the relevant crime is not good; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though having been subject to juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime several times; (d) the Defendant’s desire to punish the Defendant has not been withdrawn; and (e) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the record and the theory of change, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.