The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant, under unfavorable circumstances; (b) each of the instant crimes was a repeated offender of the same kind; (c) the Defendant was released on September 3, 2017 and was arrested as the current offender on October 3, 2017; and (d) the Defendant was released on November 11, 2017, when he was arrested as the current offender on the 15th day of the same month; and (b) the Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing his mistake on a favorable basis; (c) the Defendant appears to have been recognized as a substitute; (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment against the Defendant by exceeding the lower limit of the recommended sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Committee; and (e) the amount of damage was relatively small.

B. In light of the fact that the sentencing takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is determined after the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the difference between the appellate court’s opinion and the first instance judgment is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the original judgment and the original judgment’s new materials, such as where new materials have not been submitted to the appellate court to the trial, and there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the record of this case and the statement of sentencing.