The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Improper sentencing on the gist of reasons for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Improper sentencing of the relevant legal doctrine refers to cases where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing review process and the sentencing guidelines.

In a case where the appellate court’s sentencing determination is deemed unfair in light of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, the appellate court should reverse the judgment below’s unreasonable determination of the sentence (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The lower court’s sentence return to the instant case is too unreasonable in light of the content of the specific case.

1) The lower court is reasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant by deceiving the victims by submitting false evaluation data on the value of collateral; (b) by deceiving the financial institutions of the victims; (c) the criminal method is inadequate and the amount of fraud is considerable; (d) the Defendant led the instant crime to raise its own business funds; and (e) the Defendant used most of the criminal profits; (b) the damaged financial institutions have recovered the portion equivalent to the amount of damage by exercising the security right to the instant commercial building; (c) the Defendant deposited KRW 29,021,597, which remains with respect to the victim R; and (d) the co-offender (offender) fully repaid the amount of damage to the victim V bank.