2. 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the degree of tangible power of the Defendant is relatively minor and the damage is not significant, the Defendant was unable to use the document or recover the damage from the victim until now.

In addition, the Defendant had already used violence against taxi drivers several times, and committed the instant crime again even though he was sentenced to a fine or a suspended sentence on each occasion, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence.

As long as the defendant repeats the same crime despite the continued punishment of the defendant, it is inevitable to severely punish him/her.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no circumstance or normal relation to changing the punishment in the court.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the oral argument of the court below and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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.