The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 51,600,000 won to the applicant through fraud.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (6 months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within the reasonable and reasonable scope, and the fact that there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to 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. Although the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the ground that it is somewhat different from the view of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the fact that the defendant argued about the criminal intent of deception and the criminal intent of deception in the lower court, but it appears that he/she was in the trial.

However, there was a special change in circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions in the court below because the amount of fraud is a large amount and the amount of fraud is not recovered for a long time, but measures for recovery of damage, such as deposit, were not taken up until the case is in the trial.

It is difficult to see it.

A comprehensive examination of all the matters concerning sentencing, including these circumstances, in light of the records of the instant case and the process of discussing the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, developments and methods leading to the commission of the offense, circumstances after the commission of the offense, and the records of punishment, etc., the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, in light of the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, and relevant sentencing cases.

It cannot be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is unfair.