2. The circumstances are that the Defendant’s confessions and reflects the instant crime, part of the damage was temporarily returned during the investigation, and the victim G, AB, AC,J, and the original agreement was reached in the trial, taking into account the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s appeal for the wife against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant, who was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on October 1, 2009 due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, was sentenced to imprisonment on May 21, 2012 and completed the execution of the sentence on May 21, 2012, and was sentenced to the punishment once to be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime, one time of fines, and six times of punishment, and again commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime. The above crimes have been concentrated on about one month and 17 days of punishment, and the contents of the crime are as mentioned above, as if the defendant were employed in China restaurant under several methods such as punishment, the defendant embezzled money and valuables under the name of prepaid fund, and some larceny crimes were committed by the defendant's intrusion into China restaurant that he acquired money under the name of prepaid fund, and thus there is a high possibility of criticism. The total amount of damages caused by the crime of this case and the sentencing guidelines of the court below, including imprisonment with prison labor for up to six years and six years of the victims.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. As the appeal by the defendant is groundless, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.