2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and reflects on the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the amount of damage caused by the fraud and the damage to property is relatively small is favorable to the Defendant.

However, each of the crimes in this case is not good in light of its circumstances and contents.

The Defendant was punished several times for violence or fraud, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on July 17, 2014 to commit the crime of this case during the suspended execution period, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2015, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the suspended execution period.

The Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims and did not recover any damage.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of each of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of each of the instant crimes, means and methods thereof, and all of the sentencing factors in the process of trial and records of the instant case, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, or is too unreasonable.

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.