2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment on July 23, 2015; and (b) the Defendant committed a breach of trust with the victim, thereby causing considerable damage to the victim; and (c) even though the Defendant led to the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, the court below was determined by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant as above; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the commission of the crime.

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