2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant reflects the Defendant, and the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than the punishment of a fine imposed once due to a crime of dual offense, etc. favorable to the Defendant.

However, these circumstances seem to be reflected in the sentencing revealed in the court below.

The scope of damage caused by each of the instant fraud crimes is not only KRW 12 million but also the Defendant committed the crime of forging private documents and uttering of the said investigation document.

There has been no proper measures to recover damage to the victim until now, and the victim has continuously sought a strict punishment against the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, means of the crime, age, sexual conduct, environment, family relation, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments and records, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. 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.