2. The judgment of the court below is that each of the crimes of this case was committed by the defendant with a false statement that the defendant would escape payment of taxi charges or exchange checks against an unspecified number of taxi drivers in the country, and the defendant used money temporarily, and stolen the acquired mobile phone, etc., and the total frequency of crime exceeds 80 times, and the amount of fraud damage exceeds 31 million won, the amount of theft damage exceeds 24 million won, and the amount of theft damage exceeds 24 million won, and the defendant also used the stolen mobile phone as a security to another taxi engineer, and obtained the victim's belief by paying the taxi charges in advance, etc. It is disadvantageous that the crime law was poor; whether the defendant completed execution of punishment due to fraud, etc.; whether the defendant started to commit the crime of this case; and that the same kind of crime records exceeds 10 times, including the punishment of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant reflects the wrong, that part of the thief crime was recovered, that the defendant's health is not good, and that the family environment was breafed, etc. is favorable.

In full view of such circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is groundless

(DE in the 15th bottom of the judgment of the lower court is a clerical error in the “M” and “3,300,000 won” in the total column of “3,300,000 won” and “3,330,000 won” in the last column of the 15th day (15th day) and the second day (31st day (20,000 won) is a clerical error in each “4,860,00 won”, so ex officio correction is made in accordance with Article 25(1)