Therefore, since only the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion of the lower court on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, the aforementioned acquittal portion was excluded from the appeal subject to separation and determination.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the remaining convictions except the aforementioned separately and finally found innocences.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as stated in the grounds for sentencing, has determined a sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

There is no change in the special sentencing conditions in the trial.

Although the Defendant agreed with some victims at the lower court, most of the damages have not been recovered despite the number of victims of this case and the amount of damage is not much, and the Defendant has been punished several times due to fraud and embezzlement. In full view of the fact that some of the crimes of this case were committed during the period of repeated crimes and all other sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, it is not deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

4. Thus, 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.