The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 1 in the original judgment, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 2 in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. Unless the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or the first instance court’s determination of sentencing is deemed to be unreasonable in full view of the newly discovered materials in the appellate court’s appellate court’s determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s determination of sentencing, unless there exist circumstances such as deeming that it is unfair

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court’s sentencing is difficult to be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant did not submit new sentencing data in the instant appellate trial on the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine; (b) there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to do so; (c) the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime; (d) the Defendant committed the second crime in the judgment of the lower court at the same time during the period of repeated crime of the same kind; and (e) the defrauded was a large amount of victims and the victim did not recover from damage.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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