2. Determination is recognized in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and thereby against his mistake; (b) G, who introduced the victim to the Defendant, appears to have been able to recover some damages, such as remitting KRW 9 million to the Defendant for the repayment of the victim’s debt; and (c) there was no record of punishment for the same type of crime previously committed.

However, these circumstances appear to have been considered in the original trial, and the defendant deposited KRW 3 million for the recovery of damage, but still not yet recovered damage, and the defendant's provision of goods on credit is unrefeasible and unrefasible damage, and release of his fishery products around March 16, 2012.

Written Cheong (Investigative Records 9, 10 pages) was delivered to the victim; however, the summary of the release is required.

The fact that the goods indicated in the Cheong-gu book were disposed of at will by the victim and the fact that it is not good to be a crime such as continuous credit transaction with the victim without notifying the victim of such disposal, and that the fishery products were not stored in the freezing warehouse around May 3, 2012, and that the goods were stored in the warehouse on the premise that the goods were falsely shipped out on such premise.

In addition, considering the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and the environment, such as preparing and delivering a letter of investigation (in the face of 11 pages), etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

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.