2. The fact that the judgment reflects the crime, the fact that there is no criminal record of fraud, and that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, is favorable.

However, there is no reason to believe that the crime of defraudation by forging and using a document is bad, most of the acquired amount is not returned, the victim is punished by the defendant, and the same criminal record of the crime of forging a private document and the crime of conducting the above investigation document is committed once.

In addition, in consideration of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the theory of changes, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which stipulates that “E” under Article 25(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be corrected to “victim E”.