The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court have already been presented during the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no change of circumstances favorable to the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.

It is more favorable that there are children who have no record of being sentenced to punishment to the defendant, and that there are children who should look after.

However, for more than three years, the defendant had been accused of the victim for more than three years, and forged and used the private document under the name of another person to deceive the victim in the process, even after the victim filed a complaint, and even after the victim had deceiving the victim, the victim again borrowed the money, which is very bad in terms of the period and method of the crime, and the amount of damage also 320 million won.