2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant had the record of having been punished several times by larceny under the same veterinary law; (b) the Defendant has not terminated by committing the instant crime; (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victims; (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily surrendered and certain damaged items have been returned.

No new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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