The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original court’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the original court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In this case, the elements of sentencing alleged by the defendant have already been deliberated in the course of pleadings in the original court, and are deemed to have sufficiently taken into account the determination of the sentence against the defendant, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court’s lack of new materials of sentencing.

In addition, even though the crime of this case is being committed during the period of repeated crime, it is not good to commit the crime of this case.

There is no circumstance that damage has been recovered from larcenys up to nine times, and the defendant is still unable to receive a letter from victims until now.

In full view of such circumstances and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, even if considering all the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that most of the crimes were committed in the first instance court to recognize and reflect all of the crimes, and that most of the crimes were committed in a minor manner, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the original court excessively deviates from the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion disputing the propriety of sentencing in the lower court is not accepted.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.