The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (six years of imprisonment) 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 lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, including the following: (a) the amount obtained by the Defendant is a large amount; (b) the victim was a multiple and repeated crime; (c) a significant portion of the amount of damage was not recovered; (d) the Defendant was unable to receive a written statement from the victims; (b) the Defendant recognized and led to a crime that occurred in the trial; (c) the Defendant recognized and led to a separate judgment; and (d) the equity with the case that was adjudicated at the same time; and (e) there is no other circumstance that may be newly considered in the trial; and (e) the lower court’s sentencing conditions in the course of sentencing deliberation, such as the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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