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). The lower court imposed a sentence against the Defendant by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant repeated the same type of crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant repeatedly committed the same type of crime other than the instant case; and (c) the Defendant’s claim or issued a summary order by repeatedly committing the same type of crime; and (d) the likelihood of repeating the crime appears to have been high in light of such circumstances; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime in a situation where he/she was detrimental to the recognition function

Based on the above legal principles, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court because the new sentencing data against the defendant was not submitted in the trial court, and even considering the factors revealed in the proceedings of the pleadings of this case including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the sentencing of the lower court is not sufficient to be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that there is no risk of re-offending due to the lack of health that is likely to cause inconvenience at present, but it is difficult to believe in light of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly repeated the crime even during which he suffers from the disease of “inception of acute maltyphism.”

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.