2. The lower court determined a sentence within the scope of the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of injury is minor; (b) the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant; (c) the victims are repeated crimes of the same kind; (d) the records of the same crime are 33 times and the records of the sentence are seven times and the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, circumstances, means and results of this case; and (d) the circumstances after

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Although the defendant is not more heavily against the crime, and the degree of damage caused by the injury and damage is not severe, it is recognized that the victims have agreed with the victims, such circumstances have already been considered in the original trial, so the sentencing conditions in the previous trial have been significantly changed.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of the fact that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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 on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.