The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation filed in the appellate court shall be dismissed.

The court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately, the part of the court below's rejection of the above application for compensation in the judgment below is excluded from the scope of the trial of this

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in circumstances in the matters on which the sentencing conditions are attached after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

In addition, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and the defendant has committed several crimes in a short period from the ten-day period to the point that he was released from prison despite a repeated crime due to the same crime. Considering the circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances and motive leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the court below is too excessive.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. An applicant cannot raise an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation or accepting a part thereof (Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Therefore, the applicant whose application for compensation was rejected in the lower court’s trial cannot make the same application for compensation again in the first instance trial. Thus, such application for compensation is lawful.