2. The lower court, in light of the method and content of the instant crime, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was not well aware of the nature of the instant crime in light of the method and content of the crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the repeated crime due to the interference with the first head’s performance of official duties as indicated in the judgment of the lower court; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime several times; and (d) the Defendant had criminal records related to the same criminal records and violence; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime are disadvantageously unfavorable to the Defendant; and (e) under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the lower court determined the sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (i) the basic area (i) the Defendant’s age and behavior, (ii) the background and motive leading to the instant crime; and (iii) the circumstances after the commission of the Supreme Court’s sentencing, etc.

When the sentencing of the lower court’s judgment is fully taken into account in the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

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.