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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In determining the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court considered (i) the Defendant, under unfavorable circumstances, who was convicted of the same crime and again committed the same crime within a short time despite having been convicted of the same crime, and (ii) the Defendant runs a unregistered credit business at a larger scale, taking into account the fact that there was another criminal penalty power against the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment already and was subject to suspended sentence, and (ii) the Defendant led to a confession and reflect of

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

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

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing 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.