The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) 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, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the following, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in light of the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial, including the confession of the Defendant, the victim, and the victim AG did not want punishment against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant committed the crime against seven victims over a long period of time; (c) the amount of damage is a large amount of KRW 60 million; (d) the amount of damage is reached up to KRW 60 million; and (e) the fact that most damage was not recovered; and (e) the remaining victims other than the victim AG still did not receive a suspicion.