2. The judgment is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, recovered part of the damage, and the Defendant did not have any criminal record other than one fine imposed on the Defendant for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in 2017, which seems to have been already considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant by acquiring 69,93,552 won from the victim through a chain of personal relations, and by altering the part of the registered matters of the building in Seoul in order to deceiving the victim by emphasizing the defendant's financial power, and by forging the content certification documents, lease contract under the name of K Law Firm K, and presenting it to the victim, and thus, the crime is very poor in light of the motive, method and content of the crime, and the considerable part of the damage is not recovered, and the defendant has not been used from the victim, and the punishment of the similar case is not unfair in full view of the defendant's age, career, career, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the sentencing of the similar case as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above 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 it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.