2. The Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes, and the family members of the Defendant wanted to take the Defendant’s wife.

The defendant living together with the victim for a relatively long time, and it seems that he paid monthly living expenses for the victim and his children.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant has not been punished for the same kind of force or suspension of execution or more.

In addition, the crime of this case is a crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive on May 2017, and at the same time, it is necessary to consider equity in the case of sentencing a judgment.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking advantage of personal trust with the victim.

The defendant acquired almost all the property of the victim and the victim seems to have suffered serious economic damage.

The defendant received the above money from the injured party and used it for personal purposes.

The damage caused by the instant crime was not completely recovered, and it seems not easy to recover the damage in the future.

The victim is under a disadvantageous condition to the defendant, such as wanting to punish the defendant with severe punishment.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and theories of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, career, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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