The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

Among them, the compensation order part is revoked, and the court below's application for compensation is revoked.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination of the grounds for appeal by a defendant is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made 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 the statutory penalty. In our Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, there are unique areas of the first instance

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: (a) the lower court rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing stated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the circumstance favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, such as the confession and reflect of the Defendant; and (c) most damage was recovered, is sufficiently taken into account when the lower court rendered the sentence; and (d) the nature of the crime is not good; (b) there are many records of criminal punishment against many victims of the instant case; (c) even before the instant case, there were multiple times of criminal punishment for fraudulent crimes under the same Act; and (d) even before the instant case, even during the period of repeated punishment upon sentence; and (d) the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentencing judgment is not deemed to have exceeded a reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) the conditions of sentencing in the trial.