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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the instant crime is inevitable to punish the Defendant in light of the following: (a) by concealing the machinery that became the object of the mortgage of the victim bank by means of sale and removal to another person; (b) obstructing the victim’s exercise of rights; and (c) concealing the property by making the owner of corporeal movables and the owner of corporeal movables unknown on the ground of an enterprise without any real title of the Defendant’s former spouse in order to escape compulsory execution; and (b) the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and methods of the crime; (c) the amount of claims not recovered by the victim bank and creditor company reaches KRW 1.1 billion in principal; and (d) the amount of damages incurred by the instant crime appears to be considerable; and (e) the victim bank and creditor company did not make significant efforts to recover from the damage

Although the defendant led to the trial, it is difficult to view that the court below's punishment was to be mitigated when considering the evidence relations, and there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even though the defendant deposited 10 million won to the creditor company at the trial, it is in light of the amount of damages suffered by the creditor company, etc.