The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects the mistake in depth, that the Defendant agreed with the AI and paid some amount to the victim M for recovery of damage, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment heavier than the suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor.

However, the court below appears to have determined the punishment by taking into account all the favorable circumstances as above, and there was no change in circumstances that could change the sentencing of the court below after the decision of the court below was made. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant for the purpose of promising to pay money, or by borrowing money from the defendant while running a siren business, by deceiving the victims even though he did not have the intent and ability to pay it, and by deceiving them, it was received money from the victims under the name of business funds, vehicle purchase price, insurance premium, etc., and the crime was considerably poor in light of the method and contents of the crime, and the total amount of damage to six victims was about 20 million won, and most of the defendants did not recover from the victims other than the AI, and did not have been used from the victims other than the AI, and even if the defendant was sentenced to a small amount of fine, it was found that the defendant was not guilty, taking into account the circumstances that were favorable to the defendant's family and the defendant's family and the defendant's family and the defendant were committed.

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

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.