2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and that the instant crime and the instant crime are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

B. However, in addition to the fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is a considerable amount of up to 40 million won, the victim did not agree with the victim, and the victim did not recover the damage in cash, and at the time of the police investigation, the victim received reimbursement of KRW 2.5 million at the time of the investigation.

On the other hand, the Defendant stated that “4 million won was repaid.”

(See No. 10 of the Investigation Records No. 10). After the judgment of the first instance court, the defendant made a statement that "the victim has repaid KRW 4 million to him, and the degree of KRW 10 million has been consumed with the victim as well as expenses for living and entertainment, etc." The court below held that "the victim has returned KRW 10 million out of the amount of convenient payment to the victim," which appears to be due to mistake.

(A) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if the circumstances favorable to the Defendant were considered in light of the Defendant’s age, details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, circumstance, and circumstance after the crime, etc., were considered.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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.