The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant was able to take account of the following: (b) the Defendant’s recognition of each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant did not wish to punish the Defendant solely by mutual consent with the victim; and (d) each of the instant crimes was committed on April 19, 2017 by a prior conviction of the violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, etc., for which judgment was rendered on April 19, 2017, and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the total amount of damage to each of the instant crimes was not much 65 million won; (b) the Defendant was punished several times for fraud; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year with prison labor for violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) at Sungwon District Court Support on May 25, 201; (d) on June 28, 2012, the Defendant was in execution of the sentence and was under repeated crime on June 28, 2012; (c) the Defendant was absent on the date of the original sentence without justifiable grounds; and (d) the Defendant was not in attendance on the date of the original sentence without justifiable grounds; and (d) there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original sentence; and (e) there was no change in the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) circumstances in the records and arguments after the crime, etc., the lower court’s reasonable discretion is beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.