2. Determination

A. In the case of each crime of fraud against victims E,O, and P, the defendant recognized each crime, committed against each other, the damage of the victims was recovered by repaying or depositing the amount of damage at the court below, and certain victims expressed their intent not to be punished, and the balance between the judgment and the judgment should be considered at the same time as the judgment becomes final and conclusive, etc., and there are several favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., and the judgment of the court below seems to have been made within the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, including the following: (a) the defendant's age, character and behavior, and environment; (b) the sum of the amount of damage amount, and (c)

B. In the case of fraud against victims N, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is recognized and against the defendant, the fact that the above victim expressed his/her intent not to be punished by the defendant by fully repaying the amount of damage at the court below, and the crime in this part is highly likely to be subject to criticism due to the crime during the period of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to a crime under the same law, and the damage amount is a large amount of KRW 200 million, the judgment of the court below on the determination of the sentence in this part is also determined to be within the reasonable scope of discretion

C. In addition, where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).