The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account while determining the punishment in the original judgment. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the pronouncement of the original judgment.

In particular, considering the circumstances such as the Defendant’s past record of having been sentenced several times of criminal punishment for the same crime, each of the instant crimes committed during the period of repeated crime, and thus is highly likely to be subject to criticism, and the Defendant repeatedly committed a crime against many unspecified victims, and the Defendant did not agree with the majority of the victims, it is inevitable to severely punish the Defendant, and it does not seem that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Other cases.