2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes in favor of the Defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is not a good crime because the defendant deceivings the victim E, defrauds the total of KRW 130 million, and uses the document by forging the document as he is subject to the criminal responsibility from the damaged person.

The Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the injured party and did not recover the damage to the injured party.

In addition, even though one defendant was sentenced to a fine several times due to fraud, he committed the same crime.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing factors expressed in the process of the trial and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be too unfair.

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.