2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). B.

In light of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant returned KRW 20 million out of the amount of damage, the fact that the Defendant reflects his fault, etc., the lower court set a sentence against the Defendant by taking account of the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant could have been convicted of the crime of fraud, the extent of damage is not small, and the victim’s door wishes to punish the Defendant

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case and the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.