2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are that the Defendant appears to have committed the so-called “unauthorized type of fraud” crime due to the lack of economic circumstances at the time, and that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was considered to have committed intimidation to the victim E., it is difficult to view that the amount of damages suffered by the victims is relatively excessive due to the instant crime, and that the Defendant repented and reflected his mistake.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime repeatedly despite the past record of punishment for suspended execution and fine due to the instant crime on or around 2014, despite the fact that he/she had been punished for the same crime, and repeatedly committed the instant crime. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant ordering the victim to pay the drinking value in an excessive manner without his/her ability or intent at the center of the victim’s operation, and by deceiving the victim E who requested the drinking value to “be dead upon the report,” and by threatening the victim E who requested the drinking value to be exempted from such criminal punishment, so the method, circumstance, and nature of the relevant crime is not considerably good, and the victims have not been recovered properly even until the victims suffered losses due to the instant crime, and in full view of all the various sentencing conditions such as age, the Defendant’s environment, personality and behavior, etc., it is difficult to deem that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation 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.