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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, this is more so taking into account the fact that the total amount of fraud caused by the instant fraud was a large amount, that there has been an agreement with the victim of the instant fraud or that there has not been a full recovery of damage for the victim, and that the crime of forging the instant private document and the crime of uttering of the falsified Private Document is a crime detrimental to the public trust in respect of the authenticity of the document, and the quality of the crime is not good.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.