The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing. The circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, such as the confession and resistance of the Defendant, and certain victims do not want punishment against the Defendant, are already considered in the lower court’s sentencing. The fact that the Defendant was in the trial and the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim Q. However, it cannot be deemed that the degree of participation is insignificant, such as the fact that the Defendant was involved in the Defendant’s considerable social harm and injury crime, the victims, by deceiving the prosecution investigator by misrepresenting the victim, and that the amount of damage was committed over several months against the victims, and the amount reaches KRW 41,1750,000,000.