2. Determination

A. 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). (B)

The lower court: (a) committed the instant crime in which the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 20,00 won, probation, and community service order for eight months from January 22, 2018, which was sentenced to the suspension of indictment from 2015 to 10 times; and (b) committed the instant crime in which the period of the suspended sentence has elapsed six months from July 2, 2018 to December 1, 2018 after the sentence of the said judgment was issued; (c) committed the instant crime in which the Defendant acquired 1,80,000 won by committing a second offense on 20 occasions; (d) the same records were several times; (e) it is difficult to view that the community service order and probation was properly received for reasons of necessity of living expenses during the suspended sentence period; and (e) the Defendant was relatively obtained by acquiring a small amount of money and made a true repayment by having the victim make a report; and (e) the Defendant was more favorable to the victims’ family members after paying back to the Defendant’s normal damages.

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and the court below’s punishment is too excessive even in light of the following factors: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of crime, circumstances after crime, etc., and sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court.