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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant had several records of punishment for fraud; (b) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of even though he/she had been under suspension of the execution of the sentence for fraud; (c) the Defendant committed fraud through using personal trust relationship with the victim with the victim who lacks recognition capacity; (d) the nature of the crime is not good; (c) the sum of fraud and larceny damage is not large; (d) the victim did not agree with the victim; and (e) the damage recovery is not deemed to have been considerably secured; and (e) the equity between the case of partial fraud and the case of a judgment finalized at the same time; and (e) there is no new

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the offense, motive and circumstances after the offense, etc., as indicated in the arguments at the lower court and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is carried out within the reasonable scope of discretion, and cannot be deemed as hot.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.