2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and 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). As new sentencing data are not submitted at the trial court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the court below, and the circumstances alleged by the defendant as unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the court below. The amount of fraud is not a large amount, and the amount of fraud is not much and the victim borrowed the instant money to the defendant, and the victim seems to have suffered considerable economic suffering from the criminal act of the defendant, and in full view of other various circumstances, such as the period, frequency, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to have excessively exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In 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.