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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment by taking account of the favorable circumstances that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with accomplices on a systematic and organized basis despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished several occasions due to the fraud under the same law, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with his/her accomplices, even though he/she had the record of having been punished several times due to the fraud under the same law.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.