2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing, determined a punishment for the Defendant by taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the confession of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine; (c) the fact that the defrauded partially repaid the money that he/she acquired; and (d) the fact that he/she was unable to take out the money from the injured; (d) there was no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be evaluated differently from the conditions of the sentencing of the lower court; and (e) the lower court’s age, sex, environment, motive for the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., are too unreasonable to the extent of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.