2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendant’s punishment by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

The defendant showed that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office D and his family members have forged identification cards, official questions, etc., and that he forged the transcript of resident registration as if he resides in high-priced apartment buildings in order to improve their re-defense, and that one of the victimized women has caused a pain to the victimized women and their family members due to pregnancy.

In light of the motive and method of the instant crime and the degree of damage, there is a big need to punish the instant crime, and there is no new change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the lower court in the depth of the instant case.

When comprehensively considering these circumstances, the sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc., and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party deliberation, 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.