The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months 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 with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant acquired property benefits by using a debit card that was stolen by committing larceny for four times, the Defendant had escaped before the pronouncement of the judgment while the lower court was pending, and the fact that the Defendant has not recovered from damage up to the present.

However, it is necessary to consider the fact that the defendant's mistake and reflects, that the profit acquired by the defendant by the crime of fraud is relatively minor, that the defendant is punished twice by a fine, and that he does not have any other criminal record.

In full view of the above circumstances, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.