2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, the total amount of damage compared to the total number of the instant crimes, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crimes in order to raise living expenses while leaving away from his family, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, even though the Defendant had been sentenced twice to criminal punishment for the same type of fraud or theft crime, such as committing the theft under the thief method which would have pretended to trade used goods via the Internet, or theft of the thiefy cellular phone in the airport charging charges, the Defendant committed repeatedly the instant fraud and larceny under the same thief, even though the Defendant inflicted losses on a large number of victims up to 44 persons, and yet did not recover from the victims properly, the Defendant did not pay without permission several times from the instant thief to the cellular phone which was stolen from the instant thief crime; the Defendant committed the instant thief since it was still a repeated crime for the same kind of crime; and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, since it is clear that the "Fraud" of the first act of criminal records among the facts of the judgment of the court below is a mistake of "Fraud", it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.