The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) imposed by the court below 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The following are favorable circumstances: (a) the Defendant was fully aware of each of the instant crimes; and (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim E and the J.

However, each of the crimes of this case is an Internet transaction fraud against many unspecified persons, fraud of device installment payments and usage fees, and a violation of the Automobile Management Act, which are considerably poor in the nature of the crime in light of the background, target, frequency, etc. of the crime, and the defendant has been punished several times in the previous crimes. In particular, even if the defendant was released during the execution of punishment for the same kind of crime, the defendant began to commit the crime immediately after the parole, and the defendant continued to repeat the same crime without any awareness of the crime even while being investigated into the fraud of the 2018 Godan1752 decision of the court below.

The court below determined punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the judgment following the pronouncement of the court below.

In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.