The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and April) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) 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 a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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 above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it does not appear that the lower court’s sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the first instance court, including: (b) the confession of and reflect against the Defendant; (c) the first offender who has no criminal power; (d) the nature of the crime, such as committing a crime using personal trust relationship with the victim, is not good; (e) the damaged amount reaches KRW 17,934,00,00,000; and (e) the injured amount was not recovered from damage amount to KRW 17,934,00,000; and (e) the victim did not receive a written explanation from the victim.