2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the entire crime of this case as well as reflects his mistake, that the defrauded S et al. agreed with the Defendant only at the investigation stage, that there was no record of criminal punishment exceeding the suspended sentence of imprisonment, and that the Defendant’s family members want to have the Defendant’s wife.

However, the crime of fraud of this case was embezzled by means of arbitrarily rejecting the return of the "rophone" leased from the Handphone service center (on request of the customer, Handphone)" (in addition to the crime of fraud, the defendant embezzled the conditions that he borrowed from the Handphone service center for the following reasons: (a) he had been absent on the date the court below sentenced, and received money in excess of KRW 20,000,000 from him as the price; and (b) he received money from him as payment; (c) in light of the period and frequency of the crime; (d) multiple methods of committing the crime; (e) the number of victims and the scale of damages; and (e) the defendant has been already subject to two times or more as a result of the crime of fraud; (e) he embezzled the crime of this case by again blocking the theft of this case, etc. under the circumstances where he had been absent on the date when he was found to have been investigated by the police on the day of the crime of partial larceny; and (e) taking into account the following the victim’s motive and its change in circumstances.