The punishment of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment and 4 months of imprisonment for the remaining crimes against the crime of fraud of No. 5 of the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake thereof, and that the remaining crimes except the crimes of Article 5 of the judgment of the court below and the violation of the Labor Standards Act, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, should consider equity with the concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the defendant expressed his intention that the victims of the crimes of Articles 2, 5, 7, and 8 of the judgment of the court below do not want punishment against the defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victims, by deceiving them, by acquiring the victims with cash in the name of fishery products, construction materials, borrowing money, and tax invoice issuance cash, and by refusing to return the construction cost and the building temporary materials that have been leased. In light of the method, contents, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime's nature is poor, and the total amount of damage amount reaches about 365 million won, and there is considerable amount of punishment for the crime. The defendant failed to recover the damage to the victims of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and was not prepared for the same crime (one time of imprisonment and one fine). The defendant did not have any special reason to change the sentencing of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and the defendant's age, character, environment, motive, motive and consequence of the crime, the method and consequence of the crime, the records and circumstances after the crime, etc. are not recognized to be unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.