2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal are also deemed to have been already reflected in the sentencing process

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

Considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, criminal records and contents thereof in an investigation agency and court, attitude in the offense, nature, motive, means and result of the offense (the total amount of damage is multiple victims and the total amount of damage is not stated, stolen credit cards, etc. are used on several occasions) and circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the arguments in the original judgment and the party hearing, such as circumstances after the offense, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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