The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, a fine of 300,000) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant recognizes and reflects his/her mistake, is not good, and is experiencing economic difficulties is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, in light of the background, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, there is a very bad character of the crime, the record of punishment including imprisonment for the same crime, and several times of punishment. In particular, even during the repeated crime period due to the same kind of crime, the awareness of compliance such as repeated committing each of the crimes in this case is weak, and the risk of recidivism is high, there is a large number of victims, no damage recovery was made at all, and it seems difficult to expect it in the future, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

Therefore, the court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the defendant, and there is no circumstance that can be newly considered in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances, such as the motive and means of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed to be so excessive that the sentencing of the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the appeal is without merit.