2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases 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. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court solely on the ground that the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to see the health class, the lower court: (a) the Defendant recognized all crimes; (b) the first instance court was the first offender; (c) the Defendant suffers from rare incurable disease (dive spine); (d) the Defendant was also divorced with her husband; (c) the victim was also a child; and (d) the amount of money obtained by deception and the amount of damage that has not been recovered; and (d) even if there are no reasonable grounds to regard to the sentencing of the sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.