2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in consideration of the following: (a) recognized the instant crime under the favorable circumstances for the Defendant; (b) agreed with 47 victims; (c) there was no record of criminal punishment except for one time; (d) the details and methods of the crime are inferior; (b) the number of crimes and the number of victims are many; and (c) the total amount of damage amount is not small.

Although the defendant agreed to repay the amount of damage to some victims in the course of the trial, it is not reasonable to reduce the sentencing of the judgment below solely on the above grounds.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, and the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, the lower judgment’s punishment does not seem to be too heavy beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.