2. 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). The Defendant had been punished 58 times due to a fraud or habitual fraud, and a considerable number of the Defendants are the crime of taking-out type, such as the instant case.

In recent years, even after having been sentenced to the above punishment due to the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of

Despite the repeated punishment, it is not visible that the punishment of the defendant is repeated, and it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the victims' damage caused by each crime of the defendant is not significant.

The five victims reached an agreement with two (D, G).

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances as examined by the court below and the trial court, various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, and sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentencing of the court below is not so unreasonable enough to deem the sentencing of the court below to be exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion (in light of the defendant's criminal history, criminal history, possibility of recidivism, etc. as mentioned above, the mere fact that the defendant paid back the damaged amount to two persons and agreed on it does not constitute grounds that the sentencing of the court below is significantly unfair)

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to do so.