The defendant shall pay 30,000 won to the applicant J and 200,000 won to the applicant G.

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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the case of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant is against the recognition of all of the instant crimes, and the crime is committed under Articles 1 through 9, 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the lower court, which became final and conclusive, and the relationship between the two crimes and the latter is to be considered at the same time with the case to be judged.

However, it is reasonable that the defendant repeated "the crime of fraud on the Internet" against many unspecified buyers; the victim from each of the crimes of this case is 35 and the amount of damage is 12,141,700 won; the victims' damage is not recovered; the defendant has already been punished for the crime of the same kind of law; in particular, the defendant was detained as a criminal act of the same law, and the defendant was released on November 27, 2017 after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment by the court, and the risk of recidivism is high.

The court below determined punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance after the sentence of the court below.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendant is appropriate.