The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation that is the condition of sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and made it against the victim I and D to pay part of the damage amount (the defendant asserted that he paid 22,184,000 won to the victim B at the trial, and the defendant submitted the financial transaction details that he remitted total of 22,184,00 won to the victim B from October 9, 2017 to April 25, 2018, but the defendant submitted the written statement to the court below. However, the defendant submitted the written statement to the court below by the victim B that "the above amount that the defendant remitted to the victim B was not paid for the damage amount, but paid for the credit card payment amount that the defendant received under the name of the victim B and delivered to the victim B." The defendant did not submit such financial transaction details to the court below up to the victim's judgment, and the defendant did not claim part of the damage amount to the victim, and it is difficult to view the defendant's total amount of 200,000 won and 14,000 won as above.