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 determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s previous conviction was multiple criminal offenses; (b) the Defendant did not know even during the repeated period; (c) the Defendant committed a crime while committing a crime; and (d) the Defendant reflects the criminal intent; and (b) some of the victims of larceny agree with the victim of larceny and partly returned the damaged goods; and (c) there is no circumstance to be newly considered in the trial; and (d) there is no other circumstance to be newly considered in the trial of sentencing by the lower court, taking into account the motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to be excessively

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.