2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant’s mistake is repented and rebuttaled.

The total amount of damage from a living crime shall be 665,500 won.

Part of the crimes (No. 45, a year in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court of original instance) were attempted.

The victims do not want to be punished by the defendant by paying the amount of damage to six victims (the amount of damage KRW 320,500).

In the case of each crime listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1 through 6, 17, and 35 of the crime committed on the judgment of the court below, the balance between the crime of larceny at night and the crime of larceny at night in the judgment of the court below and the crime of latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be considered.

However, there are few cases where crimes are committed.

Not only three times of punishment of the same kind (one fine, two times of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and two times of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment), but also re-offending during the suspension period.

In particular, some crimes are likely to have been committed while criminal trials on the cases are pending.

In addition, comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and result, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

The defendant's assertion that the sentencing of the court below is unfair is without merit.

3. Conclusion