The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant is unable to be able to be able to take family form with the disabled of class III with physical disability. Considering the fact that all the facts of each of the instant crimes were committed and the mistake was committed in depth, and the amount of damage to each of the victims is relatively small, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing. Therefore, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In so doing, the lower court did not recognize that the Defendant, who had been punished several times, including the instant case, was committed each of the instant crimes even though the Defendant had been punished for a repeated offense, in light of the circumstance, content and frequency of the crime, and the nature of the crime, in light of the fact that there is no special circumstance that the lower court did not have any change in circumstances after the pronouncement of the lower court’s judgment, and the Defendant’s environment, motive, means and extent of the instant punishment.

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