2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant acquired a large amount of money by means of trust with the victims, the fact that most of the damage amount has not yet been repaid, there are circumstances that may be somewhat considered in terms of the circumstances of this case and the degree of the criminal intent of the defrauded, the victim D was unable to punish the Defendant, the partial repayment of the damage amount to the victim E, and the fact that the Defendant did not have any other criminal records other than the one-time fine due to drinking driving.

In addition to the circumstances that the court below considered as above, it takes into account the fact that this case was committed against many victims, and the defendant was committed while living for an escape for about seven years and avoided punishment.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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.