2. The judgment of the court below that the defendant deposited KRW 30 million in the name of the damage change, and the crime of fraud, etc. in which the crime of this case and the judgment became final and conclusive, etc., were concurrent crimes if they were indicted together and tried together, but they could not transfer to the defendant the liability that had not been tried at the same time. Similar to the type of the act, the fact that the above crime cannot be considered as favorable to the defendant when a judgment is to be declared at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and the fact that

However, even before the instant case, the crime is not good because the Defendant, who had been punished for the same kind of crime even if he had been aware of the fact that it is practically impossible to exercise his right to borrow, deceiving the victim with a considerable amount of money, and using the stolen money for the personal business "not directly related to the completion of de facto borrowing, the transfer of ownership," and most of the personal business.

In addition, the circumstances after the crime are not good, such as being investigated by the police and being temporarily discarded.

In full view of the above points and all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

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.