2. The defendant was aware of the crime of this case and his mistake was pened in depth.

In addition, the occurrence of the instant crime and the expansion of the damage therefrom, it seems that the Defendant continued to provide cash delivery only with the belief that “If cash is invested, it would leave a large amount of profit (750 billion won) through the offender” for a period exceeding two years, the Defendant is also liable for some or all of the victims.

Furthermore, when the Defendant, on behalf of her husband who is not healthy, bears excessive corporate bonds while fostering a family on behalf of her husband, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the instant crime is deemed to have been committed in a manner that would have been committed against the Defendant. The instant crime is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud (one year and four months with imprisonment) finalized on February 13, 2014 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that it is necessary to consider equity with the case to be judged together, etc.

However, the crime of this case was committed in return for promising the defendant to make a high amount of profit and acquired a total of 390,4150,000 won from the victim under the name of the investment money, and the punishment of illegal punishment is not less exceptionally applied as a result.

In addition, the defendant did not take any measures to recover the damage of the victim.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant had the record of criminal punishment twice prior to the instant crime, and the favorable circumstances as seen earlier are deemed to have been sufficiently reflected in the judgment of sentencing by the lower court, and in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant’s ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.