The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six 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, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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 above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing, and the Defendant’s confessions and reflects against the Defendant, etc., which are favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the lower court, has already been determined by the lower court and sufficiently taken into account the circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant posted false sales letters on the medium and high goods transaction website; and (b) by deceiving the victims who have contacted them; (c) committed the crime against a large number of victims; (d) the amount of damage reaches KRW 5,450,00; (c) the victims did not receive a letter; (d) there were many records of criminal punishment from the victims; and (e) the Defendant committed the same crime even during the period of repeated crime by having been sentenced to punishment for fraud and having completed its execution.