The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and three months) of the lower court’s punishment 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). Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant by acquiring approximately KRW 160 million from the victim, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and even if he/she had the record of having been sentenced to criminal punishment for the same crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime again, and the amount of damage suffered by the victim is also considerable, and it is inevitable to punish

The court below is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in full view of all the reasons for sentencing, including the fact that the defendant paid part of the amount to the victim under the pretext of interest, etc., as well as the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal including the circumstances asserted by the defendant as the grounds for appeal, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court since new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial.

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.