2. In a case 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that a defendant is led to confession and reflects by the defendant, that the defendant does not have any other criminal records than once a fine due to drunk driving, and that the medical care benefit cost that the defendant acquired is recovered is favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the various circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below is appropriate, and there is no such circumstance as it is deemed unfair that the judgment of the court below exceeds the reasonable limit of discretion, or that the judgment of the court below exceeds the reasonable limit of discretion, or that it is unreasonable to deem that the judgment of the court below exceeds the reasonable limit of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the defendant, as an oriental medical doctor, obtained the medical care expenses, etc. in excess of KRW 50 million over a three-year period; (b) the defendant raised an administrative litigation against the disposition of business suspension and recovery (Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap61383, 66708, Seoul High Court 2019Nu45809, 45816), and (c) the records and arguments of this case.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.