The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 42,600,000 won to the applicant by fraud.

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

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the lower court’s sentencing conditions because there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s submission of new materials to reverse the sentencing in the instant case, and even if considering all the records and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the application for compensation filed in the trial at the court is with merit within the scope of KRW 42,60,000 by fraud, and the remainder is without merit, and thus, the remainder is in accordance with Articles 25(1)1 and 31(1)2 and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.