2. 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant has the history of having been subject to punishment several times due to the repeated misappropriation, and, in particular, constitutes a repeated crime of the same kind.

As long as the defendant repeats the same crime despite the continued punishment of the defendant, it is inevitable to severely punish him/her.

Although the defendant reached an agreement with some victims during the trial, in light of the criminal facts of the defendant, it cannot be viewed as a new circumstantial relationship or change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the argument of the court below and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot, since it was conducted within the reasonable

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