2. The judgment of the Defendant appears to be against his own will while engaging in the instant crime from the investigative agency to the trial of the party, and is relatively old and the amount of the Defendant’s actual profits seems to be less than that of the amount of the defraudation.

On the other hand, the fact that the means and methods of the instant crime are not good and the damage has not been recovered, and that the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that he had been punished by a majority of the crimes of the same kind in the past, is disadvantageous.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant, while there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing 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). In light of all the factors indicated in the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal record, and circumstances before and after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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