2. Considering that the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not significant, even if the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment several times due to the same kind of crime, and even if there were the past records of repeated fraud, the Defendant committed the instant crime habitually. In particular, even though the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same type of crime and was investigated by the police during the repeated crime period for which the period of his release had not yet lapsed, he repeated the instant crime without any specific awareness of the crime, such as repeating the crime during the repeated crime, and not only did it reach the agreement with the victims up to the trial, but also did not recover actual damage, and considering all other circumstances that form the condition for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s assertion is unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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.