2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendants agreed at the lower court to pay 50,000 won to victims E, and there is no specific record of crime except for the 71st day of the public trial record, Defendant B, and Defendant A’s efforts to pay to their bereaved family members following the death of the victim after the sentence of the lower court was sentenced. However, there is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence of the lower court was sentenced, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendants appear to have been sufficiently considered at the lower court. Defendant A had the history of having already been sentenced three times to suspended sentence due to fraud, on the 2nd day of the evidence record, and on the other hand, there is no reason to reverse the victim’s age to the victim’s age of fraud, and there is no reason to reverse the victim’s age of fraud.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so ordered.