2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the following: (a) the recognition and reflection of his/her mistake by the defendant; (b) the agreement with two victims of three victims; and (c) the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

However, considering the fact that the number of crimes by the Defendant is high and the amount of damage is not high, the crime of this case is very poor in light of the motive and method of the crime by using the victim's trust to the Defendant, the fact that most of the actual damage is not recovered even though the Defendant was given a considerable opportunity for recovery from damage after each of the crimes of this case, and that the crime of this case is committed in advance recording, copying, and exercising the same events to complete the crime of fraud, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with severe punishment.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.