2. The fact that the judgment defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflected, and that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is a normal situation that is disadvantageous to the defendant, such as: (a) if the defendant had the victim C use a mobile phone opened in the name of the victim; (b) had the victim C use the mobile phone; (c) had not paid an amount equivalent to the above promised money; (d) had the victim G by deceiving the victim G without ability to repay or intent to pay; and (e) had acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the loan and the cost of using the mobile phone; (e) had the victim by deceiving the victim G without ability to repay; (c) had the victim I by deceiving the victim I; (d) had the nature of the crime in light of the method of crime and degree of damage; (e) the victim is not less than three; (c) the victim is also about KRW 13 million; (d) the victim has not been made with due effort for the payment of damage; (e) has not been agreed with the victim with the victim until the trial; and (e) had the record of being punished twice

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, 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 since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.