2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances on the grounds of sentencing (such as the following: (a) the lower court committed a crime again despite the fact that there was a good quality of the crime; (b) repeated the crime even if there were several criminal records of the same kind; and (c) the damage recovery was almost not performed; and (d) all of the sentencing conditions (including the fact that all the criminal acts were led to the confession; (b) the defrauded amount is a total of KRW 1,330,00 won (the total amount of KRW 920,00,00)) as indicated in the records and pleadings in the instant case; and (c) the Defendant’s allegation that there was a relatively small amount of money in the grounds of appeal (the fact that the crime was committed a contingent crime; (d) the amount of partial damage was being treated with alcohol addiction and depression; (d) the fact that there was a support for the aged; and (e) the allegation that the Defendant’s allegation cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.