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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In addition, considering the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed against a victim who was under trial due to a criminal offense in the judgment of the defendant while the sentence of a suspended sentence of imprisonment was finalized and conclusive, and without being aware of the fact during the suspended sentence period, and who did not receive any benefit equivalent to the money and credit card settlement amount, and that the victims did not recover any particular loss until the trial was held, and that they did not receive any benefit from the victims.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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