2. It is true that the judgment of the defendant led to an agreement with T, U, AI, X, AB, AD, AG, etc. that is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant made a confession of all of his criminal acts from the investigative agency, that part of the damaged items was temporarily returned to the victim after the crime, that the defendant retired from office after the release and went to work, and that it appears that the crime of this case was eventually brought about, and that the defendant reached an agreement with T, U, AI, X, AB, AD, and G.

However, the Defendant had a record of having been sentenced to juvenile protective disposition or punishment several times prior to the instant crime, and committed the thief in the same case during the period of repeated crime for which six months have not yet passed since the execution of the final sentence was completed, and the number of the thief in the instant theft and fraud crimes or the amount of damage incurred therefrom is not significant, and the victims in the trial committed in good faith without actual damage, and there is no agreement with the victims. In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted, since it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, means and consequence, and the following circumstances.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.