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). The Defendant confessions all of the instant crimes and repents his/her mistake.

The mother and wife of the defendant (the defendant knew that he was pregnant during the prison prison and completed the marriage report) agreed that the victims should be paid the amount of damages and only the amount of damages.

However, the Defendant had been punished several times for the same or similar crimes in the past (including imprisonment with prison labor) and, in particular, committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crimes for which one year has not passed after being released from prison with special amnesty from prison to special amnesty during the prison due to the same crime.

In light of the materials submitted in the trial at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and the sentencing factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, occupation, reputation, character and conduct, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., do not seem to be unfair because the sentencing of the court below excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, 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.