2. In a case 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal are also deemed to have been already reflected in the sentencing process

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and the contents thereof (the fact that there are many previous and multiple persons, and the crime committed during the period of repeated offense due to the crime committed by this species), the attitude and nature of the investigation agency and court in the criminal investigation agency and court, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.