2. It is recognized that the Defendant was making somewhat efforts to prevent or mitigate the occurrence of damage, such as providing substitute vehicles at his/her own expense to the victim, and that he/she has a family member to support ( his/her wife and child).

However, the defendant did not agree with the victim so that he/she can take part in the trial even though he/she did not know about the amount obtained by deception from the damaged person.

Although the defendant provided a substitute vehicle to the victim and operated the substitute vehicle, the victim was forced to return the substitute vehicle to the owner company due to the unpaid payment, etc., and the victim was required to obtain a continuous return request from the owner company during the operation period of the vehicle, so that the victim was adequate and adequate efforts of the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Defendant has a number of criminal records including criminal records for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the lower court 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.