2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court 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. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from that of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the above legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that is not different from the first instance court’s judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Considering the above legal principles, the damage recovery of the amount of KRW 48 million through the process of auction, the Defendant is recognized as all of the crimes in this case, and the Defendant is still against the duty to obtain a reasonable discretion of 00,000 won prior to a fine, etc.

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