The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspended execution) 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 solely on the 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). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant crime was committed by acquiring money from the victims who were in a relationship with the victim several times under the pretext of treating the traffic accident of women and children. The lower court determined the punishment by fully taking account of all circumstances, including the circumstances in which the Defendant asserts as the grounds for appeal, including the circumstances in which the amount of damage was repaid, etc., and there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that there was no change in the sentencing conditions since the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial. In full view of all of the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.