2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the entirety of the instant crimes and reflected his mistake, and that the total amount of damage is not a relatively large amount.

However, the crime of fraud of this case was committed 17 times in total against many victims who operate food-related marinas for about six months, as if the defendant were a restaurant employee, and was deceiving him as if he had ordered food normally, and in light of the background and method of the crime, frequency of the crime, planning of the crime itself, etc., the crime was very poor. Despite the investigation conducted by the investigative agency due to some fraud of this case, the crime of this case, even though it was investigated by the investigative agency, it was repeated as another crime without any awareness of the crime. In particular, even if the investigation was conducted as above, it was done to use the signature of the investigative agency with the intent of actively deceiving the investigation agency, it was repeated with the cell phone of the restaurant staff who tried to confirm whether the order of the crime was issued at the restaurant, and the crime was committed repeatedly, and most damage was not recovered until the victims and victims were released from the prison, and the crime of this case was committed with the same criminal punishment as the crime of this case.