2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The Defendant has been punished eight times due to theft, intrusion on a structure, etc., and it constitutes a repeated crime of the same kind. In light of the frequency of the instant crime (11 times) and the risk of method, etc., it is inevitable to severely punish the Defendant.

In addition, the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal are deemed to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, health conditions, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, as shown in the deliberation and arguments at the original court and the party concerned, the sentence of the original court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.