The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four years and forfeiture) of the lower court’s sentencing 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 to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where 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). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing, and the Defendant’s confession and reflects against the Defendant, etc., which are favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the lower court, shall be sufficiently considered in determining the sentence at the lower court, and it is not good that the Defendant has committed a crime by deceiving victims in a systematic and planned manner by sharing roles with his accomplices, and by deceiving them in cash, etc., through several months, the amount of damage was committed against the majority of victims, the amount of damage was higher than 60 million won, the damage was not recovered, and the lower court’s sentence was not received from the victims, and the lower court’s sentencing decision does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is specific in the sentencing guidelines at the lower court.