2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A, as if the victims could have been accused of money within a short period of time with B, C, K, or L, the Defendant deceivings the victims, and thereby deceiving them about KRW 5.1 billion to the victims, the crime is very poor in light of the method and content of the crime, and the amount of damage. The Defendant again committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime as he was sentenced to punishment by means similar to each of the crimes of this case, and the Defendant was released for long time, and the Defendant again committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime. Although the Defendant appears to have acquired most part of the amount of damage, the compensation for the victim M was not sufficient, and the victim M expressed his wish to punish the Defendant.

On the other hand, the victims may be partially responsible for the occurrence of damage, such as a deception that is caused by the desire to obtain high profits in a short period, and there is no direct evidence to deem that the defendant committed the crime of victim M in advance with other Defendants. The defendant returned the victim M KRW 1 billion to the victim M, and the victimO expressed the victim's intent that the victimO would not want the punishment of the defendant by returning considerable money to the victimO.

In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), and other matters of the defendant's age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive or circumstance of the crime, and after the crime.