The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing may be taken into account: (a) the Defendant acknowledges the Defendant’s criminal act; (b) reflects the error; (c) the degree of damage suffered by the victims; (d) the Defendant’s vehicle is covered by a comprehensive insurance policy; and (e) the representative of the Egyptive Center working for the Defendant agreed to the victims. However, the Defendant has the past record of having been sentenced to imprisonment due to the crime of an Egyptive vehicle; (b) the instant case also committed a repeated crime due to a Egyptive act; (c) the Defendant escaped during the period of repeated offense; and (d) the Defendant was arrested by the police after the escape of the incident while the police was arrested on April 2013, the circumstances after the crime were not good, and (e) the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the escape of this case is more than one year; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.