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’s sentencing is 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 the unique area of the first instance court

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). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. In light of the circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial of the lower court, such as the confession of, and reflects against, a criminal act, etc., the Defendant committed a considerable period of time against three victims, and the amount of damage was large to 66 million won, most of the victims were not recovered, and the victims did not receive a letter of suspicion, the lower court’s judgment was not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there were no particular changes in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial of the lower court, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.