The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, from a person who was an elementary school and creative victim on a multiple occasions, by deceiving the victim; (b) the nature of the offense is not good; (c) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime; (d) the Defendant reflects his/her mistake; (e) the amount equivalent to the victim is repaid and agreed to the victim; (e) the Defendant does not want to be punished; and (e) the equitableness with the case where the judgment was rendered together with each final judgment in the judgment; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character, and environment should be considered as favorable consideration;

Examining the evidence of this case and the above sentencing, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

It cannot be seen that the Defendant’s family members, even after the judgment of the lower court, submitted the materials that partially repaid the amount of damage to the Defendant to the victim, but considering the circumstances in which the victim believed and agreed that the Defendant continued to repay the promise, it is difficult to view the lower court’s punishment as a change of circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted because the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.

Since the appeal by the defendant is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.