2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected it is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, each of the instant frauds committed by the Defendant is a crime against many unspecified persons who pretended to sell used goods through the Internet, and thereby undermining the social trust in transactions through the Internet, etc. In particular, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is adequate, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant continuously committed fraud through the Internet for about one year, and the number of victims is very large; (b) the amount of fraud is too large; (c) the amount of fraud is not recovered; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense due to the previous and previous crimes; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense; and (d) other factors of sentencing that are disadvantageous to the Defendant and other various sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case.

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, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, among the outlines of the evidence of the judgment of the court below, “1...” The police interrogation protocol against Defendant, L, and E is corrected to “1.....,” and “1.K, DF, and DG copies of each of the police statements concerning D, BJ, and BL” as “1..,” and “1...... K, DF, and DG copies,” and “1.3514, 2013 high-level 3514, 1. BN, BO, BP, BP, BP, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, B, “BV”, “1.K, CA, CB, and CB”, “M0, 300, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30, 30,” and 30.