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 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). It is recognized that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and against whom the Defendant reflects it.

However, the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victims of the embezzlement and the fraud of the instant case, and transferred access media, thereby disturbing financial order and providing the foundation to commit phishing crimes with great social harm.

Defendant sought a preference on grounds of economic difficulty, but this cannot be viewed as a new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court, and the Defendant had been punished several times due to the fraud, and each of the instant crimes was committed within the repeated offense period due to the fraud.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances, including the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, even if considering the equity between the crime established in the judgment of the court below and the crime committed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime committed in the latter part of the Criminal Act at the same time, the punishment sentenced by the court below against

3. According to the 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.