The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant made confession and speaks against the Defendant when he was in the trial; (b) the Defendant was the first offender with no criminal records; and (c) the Defendant paid part of the amount of damage to the victim and agreed with the victim.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even when considering the circumstance that the Defendant led to the confession in relation to each of the instant crimes at the trial, comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that led to the Defendant’s entire recovery of the amount of damage, the Defendant’s entire recovery of the amount of damage, and the details of each of the instant crimes and the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s occurrence of each of the instant crimes, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to its excessive absence of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term "(2019 type 2386)" of the judgment of the court below shall be "(2019 type 2386)."