The judgment below

The defendant's appeal against the defendant's case is dismissed.

The judgment below

The applicant D, H, and I for compensation.

1. The lower court rejected the applicant F’s application for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part rejecting the said application for compensation was immediately determined.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Sentencing sentencing on the gist of grounds for appeal (the punishment of the court below shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months);

3. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant

A. In a case where 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

B. The lower court, under favorable circumstances, determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background, circumstances after the crime, etc., such as the fact that the Defendant committed a repeated crime with respect to the same kind of crime, the fact that the Defendant repeated the same crime, the fact that the instant damage was not completely recovered, the Defendant was not fully recovered, and the fact that the same criminal record has many kinds of criminal records, etc.

(c)

Although the defendant has agreed with some victims or has repaid damage in the trial as seen below, in light of the total amount of damage, the number of victims and the records of the crime, such circumstances cannot be deemed to constitute changes in circumstances that can reverse the sentencing of the first deliberation.

In addition, the reasons for the improper sentencing alleged by the defendant are shown to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of sentencing have changed differently.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3...