2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking account of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victims and did not pay the amount of damage, and that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the Defendant, and that each of the instant crimes ought to be considered at the same time in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud and the crime of this case, and should be judged at the same time.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the court below, the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime and has been sentenced to imprisonment is considered as disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

3. In conclusion, 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.