2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s punishment excessively deviates from the scope of discretion, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake was recognized by the first instance trial; (b) the Defendant partially carried out the construction work from the victims; and (c) the total amount of defraudation exceeds KRW 300 million; (d) the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant was unable to take advantage of the fact that the Defendant was committed.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.