2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The fact that the defendant is against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, since the frequency of the crime of this case and the number of victims, the total amount of damage exceeds 30 million won, it cannot be deemed that the amount of damage is less than 30 million won, each crime of this case has been committed during the period of the same repeated crime, and there are many criminal records of the same kind, many criminal records of the same kind, the damage of each crime of this case has not been recovered most, and the fact that the victims have not received an application from the victims is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relations, etc. as well as various conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleadings and records, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

3. 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.