2. The Defendant recognized his mistake, and was in profoundly against himself, and agreed with the victim in the lower court.

The profit actually acquired by the defendant is less than the amount recognized as criminal facts.

Each of the instant crimes ought to be considered in relation to the crime of fraud, etc. for which judgment was made on November 17, 2015, and the relationship of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, the defendant is currently not in good health.

However, this case is not very good to commit the crime by acquiring money through forged identification cards and charter contracts.

Although there have been a lot of records of punishment for the same crime, the defendant again committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime.

Although the instant crime was committed on November 17, 2015, in the relationship between fraud, etc. for which judgment was rendered on November 17, 2015, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and there was an agreement with the victim, the lower court seems to have determined the punishment by fully

In full view of all the circumstances, including these circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family environment, motive and method of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, in the instant case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, the first instance sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.