2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant acquired a large amount of money from five victims to KRW 500,000 in total.

The Defendant was punished for the same crime five times (two times of imprisonment, two times of suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and one fine). In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime again after having been sentenced to imprisonment on April 12, 201 as a crime of fraud on April 13, 201 and completed the execution of the said sentence on April 13, 201.

In addition, the defendant did not comply with the summons of the police at the investigation stage around October 2014, and was arrested on March 2017, but did not recover from the victims until now.

This defendant's severe punishment is inevitable, and there is no new change in circumstances that make it possible to change the original court's punishment in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, and background of the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (special aggravated area, 2 years to 6 years from 9 years), the punishment sentenced by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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