2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected by mistake, and that the Defendant’s actual damage is about KRW 80 million by paying rent for a considerable period of time even after the Defendant disposed of the instant machinery.

However, despite the fact that the defendant had been already sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to similar crimes, he/she again led to the crime of this case, and the degree of criticism is large in that he/she was not able to receive from the victim due to the failure to recover

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the background and background of the crime, the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the character, conduct and environment of the defendant, and the circumstances after the crime, and the circumstances where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015), etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

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