2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, etc., and committed the instant crime during the same repeated crime period, taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s confession and reflective attitude, the amount of damage to the instant crime is relatively small, and the victims were not punished for the Defendant upon agreement with some victims, etc., the lower court sentenced the above punishment, respectively.

In addition to the circumstances in consideration as above, the court below held that the defendant's agreement was favorable to the defendant's agreement with the victim I, and that the defendant's act of violating the rules of prisoners was committed twice, etc.

The fact that it is difficult to see shall be considered in light of the circumstances.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of the offense, means and result, scale of the offense, and circumstances after the commission of the offense, which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence of the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.