2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and expressed his/her intent to reflect; (b) there are circumstances that can serve as partial repayment of the amount of damage, such as the judgment of the first instance court; and (c) there are no criminal records that exceed the same criminal records and fines.

However, the crime is not good, the amount of damage is not high, and the economic damage suffered by the victim is high.

In addition, although the defendant paid part of the amount of damage after the decision of the court of first instance, it is difficult to view that it can give fundamental changes to the sentencing conditions due to the small scale of the damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., as well as the sentencing guidelines for the crime of fraud [the basic area of types 1 (less than KRW 100 million), 6 months to 1 year and 6 months], the sentencing of the court of first instance is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.