The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a two-year imprisonment and confiscation) of the lower court’s sentencing (a two-year imprisonment and confiscation) 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). In light of the following, the lower court’s sentencing determination does not seem to have exceeded a reasonable scope of discretion, inasmuch as the circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the first instance trial, including: (a) the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment by larceny, etc. even before the instant case; (b) the Defendant had many records of having been sentenced to criminal punishment by larceny, etc.; and (c) even before the instant case, even during the period of repeated offense, some victims expressed their intention not to punish; and (d) the rest of victims did not receive a letter of intent, the lower court’s sentencing determination does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.