The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The amount of damage has not been recovered from most of the damages up to the present day despite the considerable amount of damage.

Although the Defendant asserts in the trial that the injured party did not return the down payment to the contractor all of the contract deposit, the victim's damage caused by the Defendant's crime is still the same, so it cannot be said that there are circumstances to reflect this in the sentencing.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, relationship with the victim, the law and process of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the relationship with the criminal records, as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, the punishment imposed by the court below is not hot since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.