2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant had been punished for a fraudulent crime eight times (eight times) and there was a previous criminal conviction, and even if the Defendant committed the instant crime, he was committed for the drug medication.

Although the defendant agreed to pay the victim C an additional amount of KRW 2 million out of the remainder of KRW 19.65 million in the case of a party, it cannot be viewed as a change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.