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, etc.). The following are the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant: (a) the sum of the amount acquired by the Defendant is 86 million won in total; (b) the Defendant did not agree with the victim; and (c) the damage recovery was not complete; and (d) the fact that there was a previous task.

However, the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim seems to be against the part in which he did not repay the money at the time. The so-called loan fraud is difficult to be deemed to have taken the form or degree of deception as the so-called loan fraud, and the victim paid a total of KRW 24 million as interest. After the decision of the court below, the victim received approximately KRW 50 million in the auction procedure for the real estate owned by the defendant, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant's debt of the loan of this case against the defendant. Based on this, the victim secured a compulsory recovery plan for collection of claims against the defendant and son as of the 20th half of the present year, including by filing a civil suit against the defendant and son, and the defendant was punished for a fine of KRW 1 million before about 10 years prior to the crime of this case, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, and circumstances after the crime of this case cannot be considered to have been unreasonable or unreasonable.