The defendant alleged that he committed an act under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below on the first day of the appellate trial, but his assertion was made after Q’s representative's order, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal.

On the other hand, the record does not reveal the grounds that affect the judgment of the court below to judge ex officio in relation to the defendant's assertion.

2. It is recognized that the defendant deposited 13.2 million won of the amount of damage under paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below with the damaged company as the victim at the appellate court

However, considering the nature of the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime, and the victim's damage, etc., it cannot be deemed that deposit the amount of damage caused by some fraudulent crimes in the appellate court after the lapse of two years from the crime is a change in circumstances to the extent of mitigation of sentencing.

In addition, considering the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.