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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although the Defendant recognized the crime, there was an agreement with the victims or an expression of non-guilty intent, the criminal records of the crime of larceny can be held, this case was re-offending during the period of repeated crime resulting from the same crime, and there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, health, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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

[However, among the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, it is apparent that the phrase “ around 19:00 on March 23, 2017,” as indicated in the column for the date and time of the crime No. 3 of the annexed List of Crimes (section 4 of the lower court’s judgment) is a clerical error in the “ around 05:00 on October 13, 2018,” and thus, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. As to the litigation costs, Article 186(1) proviso of the