2. Determination

A. We examine the argument about the first instance court's judgment, and the defendant is against the confession of the crime of this case. However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in the form of fraud; despite the absence of the ability or intent to take over e-mail during the repeated crime period after being released, by deceiving about 6.1 million won from 6 victims under the name of the above e-mail or the right to manage e-mail; it is not very good that the crime is committed; it is not a considerable amount of damage; it is not possible to reach an agreement with the victims; it seems that the damage recovery was not made to other victims; the defendant was presumed to have been committed against the defendant; the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on October 207; the defendant was sentenced twice a suspended sentence; the defendant was punished twice, and the defendant's records and circumstances after committing the crime of this case, and the defendant's personality and conduct, family relations, etc. do not seem to have been too unfair.

B. We examine the judgment on the argument about the second instance judgment, and the defendant is against the confession of the crime in this case. The crime in this case is one of the concurrent crimes as stated in the first head of the second instance crime in which the judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and consider equity with the case to be judged at the same time. However, the crime in this case is that the defendant acquired a total of KRW 136 million from the victim as the price for the acquisition of a charnel house, and the act and the nature of the crime are not easy, the agreement with the victim was not reached, and the damage is not recovered.