2. The following facts are considered as follows: (a) the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime in the first instance and committed the instant crime; (b) the Defendant had no record of punishment for the same criminal record; (c) the Defendant was able to prevent the expansion of damage by providing sufficient security from the Defendant or by suspending the transaction; (d) the Defendant appears to have been partly responsible for the expansion of damage to the victim who has transacted only without taking such measures; (b) the Defendant partially repaid the amount of deceptive money by showing the Defendant’s efforts to recover damage; and (c) the Defendant’s detention entails excessive difficulties to the family members to be supported by the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by deceiving the victim to pay the long-term fish price supplied by the defendant normally through 91 times for about 5 months, and the nature of the crime is not less than 1.2 billion won, but not less than 600 million won at the present time, and considering various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, character, character, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommendations (one year to 6 months of imprisonment) according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee applicable to this case, it cannot be deemed that the above sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing 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 appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.