The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial at the trial, and the damage caused by the instant crime is not less than that of the victim B, even though the victims have fled for a long time due to the agreement with the victims, there is no additional amount repaid in the trial except for the amount repaid in the case of eight million won, and there seems to be no change in the situation in the future. The Defendant has the history of having been sentenced to punishment and suspended sentence for the same crime, and all the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s excessive punishment is unreasonable, and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3...