The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the following factors: (a) under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and the liability therefrom; (b) the content and method of the instant deception are not good; (c) the Defendant’s act of deception was committed against many unspecified persons on the Internet; (d) there is a significant degree of harm to the sound commercial order by causing the Defendant to commit a crime; (e) the victim was 10 persons and the amount of damage was not recovered; (e) the Defendant had been punished several times including the suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime; and (e) even though the Defendant was punished by a fine on January 2019, by taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes continuously during the suspended sentence without being aware of it; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings.

Even when considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by sufficiently taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines. Since there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower court’s judgment, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.