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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, the defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime several times, and each of the crimes of this case is more so taking into account the fact that the defendant committed without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the degree of criticism is great.

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 since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the term "Article 5-4(5)1, Articles 342, and 329 (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Articles 5-4(5)1, and 329 (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," shall be corrected as "each Article 5-4(5)1, Articles 342, and 329 (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Articles 5-4(5)1, and 329 (a) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes."