The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area for the first deliberation of sentencing.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said sentence.

Considering that the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as favorable for sentencing in the first instance court, such as the fact that the Defendant was fully aware of the instant crime, and that there was no physical condition due to urology, etc., and that the Defendant had already been punished more than 10 times since 2015, and that the Defendant was punished more than 10 times as a crime of fraud by an indeption, etc., such as the instant case, and committed each of the instant fraud during the period of a repeated offense, which was executed on September 29, 2016, by being sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 4 months on September 29, 2016, and the execution of the sentence was completed, the sentencing judgment of the lower court is too too unreasonable, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.