2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following: (a) there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data in the trial; (b) the amount acquired by the Defendant exceeds KRW 370 million; (c) a large number of victims have not been recovered; (d) a large number of victims have not been recovered; (e) a large number of victims have continuously wanted to punish the Defendant; and (e) other factors revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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