2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the crime of violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name among the crimes of this case is an act contrary to the intent of the Act to prevent speculation, evasion, evasion of laws, etc. which abuse the real estate registration system, to normalize the transaction of real estate, and to stabilize the price of real estate. The crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act also goes against the intent of the Act to ensure the safety

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and the developments and motive leading to the instant crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive, and thus, cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.