2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on the grounds of sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all the sentencing conditions (such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s family relationship and health status of the Defendant; (b) the amount of KRW 35 million was paid; (c) the amount of KRW 9.1.6 million was additionally repaid before the institution of public prosecution; (d) the amount of deception was additionally paid after the closing of argument in the first instance trial; and (e) the degree of deception was not easy due to conclusive intentional act; and (e) the degree of deception was not easy; and (e) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment before the instant crime was committed before the institution of public prosecution; and (e) the Defendant did not appear to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than six months without considering the lower court’s sentencing guidelines.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.