2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are recognized, such as the confession of the crime of this case by the defendant, and the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine for the same kind of crime.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been acquired by deceiving victims through deceiving them through several times by paying a large amount of horse dividends to the victims or participating in the studio auction. Considering that the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the background of the crime, the figure method and the amount of damage, etc., and that the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage up to the present, even though the damage amount caused by this case is reasonable, the defendant did not make any effort with the victims, and that there is no change in the sentencing conditions in our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first trial does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances of the recognized defendant do not correspond to the changes in circumstances that are favorable to the judgment of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and there are no special changes in the evidence and punishment in this case.

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