The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for 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. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015. Regarding the instant case, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant and other circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act. In so doing, the Defendant agreed to recognize all the instant crime at the time of the trial, and the Defendant paid interest to some victims and interest rate set forth in the Interest Limitation Act, and even if considering the favorable circumstances favorable to the Defendant, even if the victims still suffered serious damage and the Defendant’s strict punishment were to be expressed in the trial, it is difficult to view that the favorable circumstances have a reason to affect the sentencing to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is to be modified, and there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment, and otherwise, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.