The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the 2018 Highest 1326 case: Imprisonment for 4 months, 2019 Highest 1280, 2019 Highest 1846: Imprisonment for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) On July 23, 2015, the lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) in full view of the fact that the Defendant fully recognized the crime; (b) the victims of traffic accidents agree with the victims of the crime not to have the Defendant punished; (c) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the content and method of the crime of fraud and larceny; (d) the amount of damage is not substantial; (c) the Defendant committed an additional crime during the period in which he was tried for certain crimes; and (d) the fact that there are several criminal convictions in the same kind of crime; and (e) there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing at the trial; and (e) comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing seems to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by being too excessive.