The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court’s sentencing 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). In light of the following: (a) the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning; (b) the Defendant led to confession and reflects the Defendant; and (c) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing that the Defendant claimed in the trial have already been determined by the lower court, taking into account the equity in the case where the Defendant was judged at night and at the same time as the crime of larceny; (b) the Defendant committed planned and intelligent crimes, such as deceiving the victim who is a financial institution by deceiving the victim by using false disposal documents; (c) the amount of damage reaches KRW 70 million; (d) the amount of damage reaches KRW 70 million; and (e) the period of repeated crime, despite being sentenced to punishment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the damage was not recovered; and (e) the victim did not receive a written indictment from the victim.