2. The lower court rendered a sentence of one year and six months in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, and the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee (a period of 10 months to two years and six months) [the scope of the recommended sentence] of the type 2 (at least KRW 100 million, but less than KRW 500 million), the mitigation area (from 10 months to 2 years and six months) [the special mitigated person] of the reduced area (the special mitigated person] [the extent of the deceptive act] of the reduced area, or the degree of the deceptive act is weak.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the trial, especially the fact that the defendant did not recover the victim's damage, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the sentencing guidelines.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc. are considered, the sentence of the court below is proper and too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. 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 for conclusion is without merit.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below's 1th page 16 behavior "E" is clear that it is a clerical error in the letter of "A", and 2th page 3 behavior in "A", and it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the letter of "A". Thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.