2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 the sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant is seeking a preference when he plans to take a public official examination in the future and lives faithfully.

However, the defendant from around 2015 to five times has been punished for fraud, and it is inevitable to severely punish him as a repeated crime of the same kind.

In addition, even though the damage of the crime of this case was fully recovered, such circumstance appears to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the court below.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, family relations, etc., as shown in the deliberation and arguments of the court below and the party concerned, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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.