2. The lower court determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act. A person under way: In light of the background and method of each of the instant crimes, the number of victims, and the amount of defraudation, etc., the Defendant’s liability is grave; the damage recovery is rare; the cumulative criminal records of the same type of fraud; and the recidivism (defluence) during the same repeated offense period: In the case of confession, partial recovery from damage, theft (No. 2020 high-class 309), the lower court should consider equity in the case of being tried together with the case of fraud for which the judgment has already become final and conclusive; and the reason for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial at the trial of the lower court does not seem to have been sufficiently considered, and the judgment of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded a reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, there are no circumstances to determine that the conditions of sentencing were changed in the trial, so it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.