2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and against the instant crime.

The crime of this case seems to have been led by the person in whose name the crime was committed.

Defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, as the singing fraud crime was committed in a systematic, planned, and intelligent manner, it is very serious that the damage is caused by the ordinary people who are in an economically boomed state as well as the large number of unspecified victims.

The amount of defraudation of the crime of this case reaches approximately KRW 53 million.

The defendant committed as if he was a bank employee, and received money from the victims.

Until now, victims have not recovered from damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

3. 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.