2. The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on account of the fact that the sentencing was determined by the lower court, and all of the criminal facts alleged in the judgment of the Defendant are recognized, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing, such as the support for the elderly in a situation that is economically difficult and economically difficult, and partial of the amount acquired through deception was repaid to the victims in the form of a return prevention, are already considered as having already been determined by

In light of such circumstances, the Defendant’s instant crime of fraud was committed two times for the same type of crime, and the execution of the final sentence has not yet been completed, not only was the time of the completion of the sentence, but also was taken into account not only the fact that the instant crime of fraud was committed by deceiving victims by actively means, such as suggesting a fake name, deceiving their status, etc., and taking into account the situation that victims wishing to punish the Defendant, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the first instance sentencing did not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, and that there was no particular change in the conditions of sentencing in the trial, and thus, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing 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.