2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination of a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) in light of the foregoing, the health class; (b) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects against himself/herself; (c) the Defendant paid the lease fees of the victim D Co., Ltd.; (d) the agreement with the victim HF; and (e) the considerable partial repayment of the amount of damage incurred by the victim MM Co., Ltd.; and (c) there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the lower court in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) other various circumstances that are the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence imposed by the lower court

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.