The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for not less than 10 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 aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the Defendant led to confession and reflects the Defendant; and (c) the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; and (d) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the Defendant was determined by the lower court; (b) the Defendant was involved in the considerable amount of social harm and injury; (c) the amount of money acquired is not considered minor; (d) the Defendant committed the crime against multiple victims; (e) the amount of damage reaches KRW 50 million; and (e) the amount of money received from the victims was not received from the victims; and (e) the lower court’s judgment does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) the lower court’s judgment does not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.