2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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.

(2) The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) under the circumstances indicated in its holding; (b) the Defendant’s act was committed in a systematic and planned manner against many and unspecified individuals; (c) the nature of the instant crime is very bad; (d) the commission of a principal offense against the economically and socially weak persons; (e) the commission of the criminal act is intelligent; (e) the scope of damage is e.g., e., the scope of damage is discriminatory; and (e) the damage is e., e., undiscriminatory; and (e) the damage is not easy to recover; and (e) the Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition that he/she was punished more than 10 times for the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant’s act was committed by paying KRW 5 million to the victim; (e., the Defendant’s intent not to punish the Defendant; and (e.