The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects his fault in depth.

In view of the fact that most of the money acquired by the defendant was paid as interest to the victim E and M, and that the interest exceeding the statutory maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act was agreed upon, the total sum of the money paid by the defendant to the victims of the crime of this case is deemed to be equal to the principal.

The above victims also have the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.