2. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant acknowledges and reflects all of the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant appears to be dead, the fact that there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the family relationship and economic situation of the Defendant, etc., the lower court appears to have determined the punishment by reflecting all the aforementioned circumstances in the lower court. While there are no circumstances to change the sentencing in the first instance court, the amount and frequency of penphones handled by the Defendant in this case, some of the instant crimes committed during the suspended execution period, and other circumstances shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character, behavior, career, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is determined within the reasonable and appropriate scope, and it is not determined that it is unfair because it is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.