2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing. It is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion, to refrain from imposing a sentence that differs from the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that differs from the first instance court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant was three times the same criminal case, the Defendant committed again during the suspension period despite having been given several advance for each of the above crimes, the Defendant’s age, Defendant’s environment, motive, motive, recommendation method, and result of the sentencing of the first instance sentencing.

In full view of the foregoing, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too large.

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.