2. Determination

A. 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). B.

In full view of the facts that the Defendant recognized his mistake, favorable to the agreement with the victim C, H, and J, the lower court repeatedly committed the instant crime during the period of the same repeated crime, the Defendant had the record of punishing several fines for the crime of interference with business, and did not agree with other victims, and was sentenced to punishment against the Defendant.

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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.