The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight 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 to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, 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). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. In light of the following: (a) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the Defendant, such as the confession of and reflect against the Defendant; and (b) the equity between the case and the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the previous offense in which the judgment became final and conclusive, has already been taken into account in the lower court’s sentence; (c) it is not good to commit a crime by deceiving the victim while doing so as much property; (d) the amount of damage reaches KRW 35 million; (e) the amount of damage reaches KRW 35 million; and (e) the victim did not make any effort to recover damage; and (e) the victim appears to have suffered a considerable economic impact from the instant crime; and (e) the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.