2. The judgment of the defendant has a record of being punished by a fine due to other crimes, and the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant who has been in excess of his/her obligation could purchase the main gift right to the victim F in a more convergence than the market price in order to repay his/her existing obligation, and that the crime of this case is not good in terms of the method of crime and the nature of the crime, such as by deceiving the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the main gift right from the victim, and that the damage suffered by the victim has not been recovered even recently.

However, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same crime and seems to have committed the instant crime because of economic difficulties at the time. In the case of the instant crime, the Defendant purchased, at the time of the instant crime, its own credit card in order to raise the money to repay the existing debt, and continuously sold at the price reduced by 10%, the Defendant continued to sell the instant product certificates at the price reduced by 10%. As the existing debt increases, the Defendant did not deliver the instant product certificates to the victim. In light of the profits accrued from the transaction of the existing product certificates, it is difficult for the victim to view that the damage suffered by the instant crime is substantially excessive. The part of KRW 10 million out of the damage suffered by the victim was recovered, and the Defendant’s efforts to recover the remainder of the damage, and the Defendant’s age, environment, personality and behavior conditions such as the Defendant’s age, etc., it is difficult for the prosecutor to find the above allegation that the sentencing of the lower court is too unfair.

3. Conclusion.