2. Determination is favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession and mistake of the instant crime, the fact that a certain amount is paid to recover damage from the case non-life insurance, which is a substantial victim, and the fact that each of the instant crimes is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of attempted special larceny, etc. for which the judgment has become final and conclusive, and the equity with

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of document fabrication and fraud crime, and in particular, the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, it is not good that the Defendant committed such crime

In addition, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the present pleadings and records, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and it is not determined that the sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.