2. If 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 determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the conflict of interest, the first offense, etc.) seems to have already been considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

In addition, there is no new change in the circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in the trial, such as recovery of damage or agreement.

Considering comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, including the fact that the amount of damage is considerable, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method of the crime, the sentencing conditions of the defendant, such as character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which are revealed in the arguments of the court below and the court below, even if considering the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

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.