The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (in original case: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years);

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). Based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was fully aware of the crime; (b) the amount of damage was not much significant; and (c) the victim was returned to the victims; (d) the Defendant had the criminal record of having been sentenced twice as sentenced for the same crime; and (e) each of the of the of the of the of the of the of the instant larceny committed again even though each of the instant crimes constitutes a repeated offense; (b) the Defendant committed the crime of larceny in the instant case continuously by means of theft; (c) deceiving the victim of the crime of larceny by deceiving the victim of the crime of fraud without the intention of marriage; and (d) deceiving the victim of the crime of larceny without the intention of marriage by deceiving the victim of the crime of larceny; and (e) taking into account

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and pleadings of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.