2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, as if he was delegated by the victim, purchased a motor vehicle under the name of the victim and the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method of crime, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and gave compensation for damages, and that the Defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, and that the Defendant should take into account both the case and the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with regard to fraud and the latter concurrent crimes as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the lower court, the following circumstances are considered in favor of the victim of fraud, taking into account the fact that the method of the crime was extremely poor, such as the use of the method of the use of the method of the articles of the private document, leading to the crime of fraud, and the victim of the crime of fraud was committed in the first instance.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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.