The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant sold the real estate on which the security was established by deceiving the victim, and even until now, the said security was not cancelled, and thus, the victim is placed in a position where the ownership of the real estate can be lost in the future.

The defendant asserts in the trial of the party that he/she has repaid his/her collateral on fisheries cooperatives. However, he/she has already determined a punishment by taking into account sufficient factors in the trial of the court below for repayment of collateral collateral on the above collateral security.

On the other hand, there is no new change in circumstances that can change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, health status, motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the relationship of the previous offense (Article 37 of the Criminal Act at the same time with the crime of concurrent crimes) as shown in the deliberation of the lower court and the political party, the punishment imposed by the lower court is considered within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not heavy.

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.