The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below's scope of inquiry dismissed the prosecution on the grounds that the victims have withdrawn their wish to prosecute each of the facts charged in the instant case after the prosecution was instituted, and convicted of the remainder of the facts charged. The prosecutor's failure to appeal the dismissal of the public prosecution as to the dismissal of the above public prosecution, which became separate and conclusive among the judgment below.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining parts (the part of the crime) except this.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) of the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable.

3. 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 the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, 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 reasoning for sentencing, declared the above sentence to the Defendant, and the circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial have already been sufficiently considered when determining the sentence in the lower court, and the Defendant has the history of being subject to criminal punishment for violent crimes prior to the instant case.