The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The punishment of the first instance judgment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following is the circumstances favorable to the Defendant that the Defendant recognized each of the crimes as indicated in the judgment.

However, the amount of fraud is close to 400 million won.

In light of the circumstances of each crime in the judgment, it is clear that the defendant has come to commit the crime with a conclusive intention, and each victim has suffered damage to a degree which is difficult to recover by using trust relationship (victim I was sick during the investigation process).

There is no circumstance to reduce the possibility of criticism against the defendant, such as that the defendant seems to use a considerable part of the fraudulent money for personal purposes.

Even during the investigation process, the defendant did not seem to have made a serious effort for recovery from damage until the trial of the court, such as punishing the criminal defendant for escape, and the reflectivity of the defendant is also limited to oral line.

Therefore, considering the major circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, it is difficult to view that there is a need to reduce the sentence to the court of first instance.

Even if there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial, and other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, are considered, the sentencing of the court of the first instance cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable for the court to impose the punishment.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.