2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary from the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the judgment of the court of first instance differs from the opinion of the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, the instant crime was committed by deceiving the victim, thereby taking the victim into account approximately KRW 30,00,00,00 by deceiving the defendant, even if there was the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, it is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant, taking account of the content of the instant deception, the amount of fraud, and the amount of

The lower court determined the punishment by fully taking account of all circumstances, including the fact that the injured party does not want punishment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal including the circumstances alleged by the injured party were determined. Although the Defendant led to the previous conviction, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment was a reason to mitigate the sentence when considering the evidence relationship and the circumstance that the injured party did not recover from damage up to the trial, etc., and it is difficult to deem that the lower court’s punishment was a reason to mitigate the sentence. In addition, the lower court’s punishment was not submitted in comparison with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that there was no change in sentencing conditions, and it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view

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 ordered as per Disposition.