2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant crime was committed by deceiving the victim and by deceiving the money under the pretext of the borrowed money. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times, including imprisonment with prison labor, due to fraud, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime. Considering the nature of the instant crime, the risk of recidivism by the Defendant, etc., it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant who repeats the same mistake.

The lower court determined the punishment by fully taking account of all circumstances, including the partial recovery of the victim’s damage, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, on the grounds that there was no change in the sentencing conditions since the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data in the trial, including the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.