The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court’s sentencing 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, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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). In light of the following, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have been exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, including the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to the aforementioned punishment on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the Defendant led to the confession and reflection of the Defendant; and (c) certain victims do not want to punish the Defendant; (d) even before the instant case, the Defendant had been subject to criminal punishment due to an integrative type of fraud; (e) the Defendant repeatedly committed the same crime against many victims; and (e) the victims did not make efforts to recover from damage; and (e) the victims expressed their intent not to punish the victims, but still did not receive the remaining victims.