2. Although the victim asserts that the market value of the finger scam embezzled by the Defendant is approximately KRW 3.5 million, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the victim also seems to have notified the Defendant of the market price at the time of requesting repair of the said finger scam.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime and shown his attitude to repent of his mistake.

It seems that the health and economic conditions of the defendant are not good.

However, the damage caused by the instant crime was not completely recovered, and the victim has maintained his/her intent to punish the Defendant.

All the defendants have the past record of criminal punishment for eight times (one suspended sentence of imprisonment and seven times of fine) and five times of the past record of criminal punishment is the same as that of the crime in this case.

In relation to the instant crime, the amount of the first fine imposed on the Defendant according to the summary order was KRW 5 million, but the lower court imposed only KRW 3.5 million, which is less than the above amount. This seems to have been due to the consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant as seen earlier.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it goes beyond reasonable discretion.

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

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.