2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances in which a new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the defendant alleged for unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court, and the fraud of the defendant is more than 30 million won, and the defendant et al. paid part of the loans of this case, including the fraudulent money, but the amount not repaid exceeds 20 million won, although the defendant agreed with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund that guaranteed the considerable portion of the loan of this case, an agreement was reached on condition that the defendant will pay the amount exceeding 200 million won in installments for the next year, but it cannot be deemed that the actual damage was actually recovered, as a result of crime beyond the reasonable scope of sentencing.

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 on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.