2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

In light of the data submitted at the health team and the trial of the court, it is difficult to evaluate that there exists a change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. The crime of this case is committed against many unspecified victims, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the criminal facts of this case 3, 4, and 6 of the original judgment have the record of criminal punishment even before the defendant committed the crime of this case, and the crime of fraud of this case under Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, and 7 of the Criminal facts in the judgment of the court below and the crime of violation of the Telecommunications Business Act was committed during the period of probation, in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too excessive, and thus, the defendant'

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.