The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, including the following facts: (a) on May 9, 2016, the Defendant habitually and habitually joined with C, and (b) on around 20:30 on May 9, 2016, acquitted him/her on the grounds of the judgment; and (c) the Defendant conspired with C in collusion with C for the larceny of residence at night at night; and (d) the remainder of the charges

Since only the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing and the prosecutor did not file an appeal, the acquittal portion on the grounds of the judgment of the court below is judged to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties. Thus, the object of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction portion of the

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and four years and six months) of the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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