2. Although the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not so significant, most of the damage seems to have not been recovered until now, there was no submission of particular data to acknowledge that agreement with the victim or that the victim was suspected of being suspected of being killed, and the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

The circumstances to be assessed or the fact that there is no new source of data in the course of the deliberation of the political party’s sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime No. 1, which is within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (the point of fraud on December 19, 2013): the group of fraud crimes, the group of general fraud crimes, the two types (one hundred million won or more, five hundred million won or less), the decision in the area of recommendation, the scope of the recommended sentence (one year or four years of imprisonment), the scope of the recommended sentence (one year or four years of punishment), the defendant’s argument that there is no undue ground for sentencing provided for in Article 2 of the Criminal Act, including the type of fraud crimes, the general fraudulent crime, the area of recommendation (the area of imprisonment with labor for less than KRW 100 million), the defendant’s imprisonment with labor for not less than 16 years or 4 years of six years or more;

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.