2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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, etc.). The instant crime was committed by the Defendant by deceiving the Defendant’s employment of the victim D’s children via 31,257,019 won over four months, the motive and method of the crime is inadequate, and the Defendant constitutes the same repeated offense.

The defendant paid 15,500,000 won to the victim and agreed on the condition that the remaining money would be changed by 200,000 won per month, but did not perform the agreed contents even in the first instance.

If there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial of the party, and comprehensively takes into account the sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, such as the age of the defendant as shown in the trial of the court below and the arguments at the trial of the party, the background of the crime in this case, etc., the sentence of the court below is not hot

3. Accordingly, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.