2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment, and where the sentencing of the lower court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and unfavorable conditions

The circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal (a confession and reflectivity, the background of each of the crimes in this case, economic difficulties, ex post facto concurrent crimes, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the first instance court.

When comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., revealed in the deliberation by the original court and the party concerned, including the fact that the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights was committed during the period of repeated crime, and that the victim did not yet agree with or did not repay damage, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.