The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable because the Defendant was sentenced to the financial crisis while running the real estate business, and there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, and the victim G submitted a written withdrawal of the complaint, and the victims’ damage was partly recovered. In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment (each of the crimes of the Highest 2102, 2015 Highest 4452 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 408 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2015 Highest 2016 Highest 408 Highest

2. Determination

A. Determination on each part of the instant crimes in 2015 High Order 2102, High Order 2015 High Order 4452 as to each of the instant crimes, the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes exceeds KRW 190 million, and the part of damage up to the trial is still not recovered. Each of the instant crimes is in a ex post facto concurrent relationship with the Defendant, including the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive, and other factors favorable to or unfavorable to the Defendant, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower court’s judgment and all of the factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence, are compared with the sentencing of the lower judgment. In so doing, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if the Defendant’s assertion on grounds of appeal is considered, taking into account various circumstances asserted by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the sentencing in this part is unfair is without merit.

B. There is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered after the judgment of the court below on each part of the crimes in the 2015 High Order 5418, 2016 High Order 408. Each of the crimes in this case is in the relationship of ex post concurrent crimes with the crime in which the judgment became final and conclusive, and other factors favorable to or unfavorable to the Defendant, including the Defendant’s age, sex, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as indicated in the records and arguments of this case and the reasons for sentencing of the court below are compared.