2. The lower court, based on favorable circumstances, sentenced the above punishment by taking into account: (a) the fact that the Defendant misrepresented the head of the legal office to commit the instant crime against many victims faced with economic and bankruptcy conditions; (b) the fact that it was not good to commit the instant crime; (c) part of the defraudeds (so long as 2016 senior group 753); (d) the actual amount of repayment to the victims was partially limited; and (e) the Defendant was living for the escape for about seven years to avoid criminal liability; (c) the Defendant agreed with some victims; (d) the total amount of damage to the agreed victims reaches KRW 96,850,000; and (e) the fact that only two times of fines have been sentenced.

In addition to the circumstances that the court below considered as above, it is true that the crime of this case was committed repeatedly against many victims, and the defendant committed a violation of discipline while being detained.

It is difficult to see as an unfavorable circumstance.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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.