2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized all the criminal facts of the instant case and reflected the mistake; and (b) the amount acquired by defraudation through theless erosion is a small amount of money, etc., which are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, however, the nature of the crime, such as the defendant's moving to the crime of destroying property or interfering with business in the restaurant after the intangible type of crime, is not easy, and the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the same type of crime, and in particular, there is a great possibility to criticize the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same kind of crime, and there is no agreement with the victims or recovery from damage until now. The court below held that the defendant was sentenced to punishment beyond the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, considering sufficient consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no special change of circumstances that may vary between the court below and the court below, and there is no other special circumstance that the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive and circumstance of each crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, and criminal record, etc., the defendant's assertion is not reasonable because the punishment imposed by the court below is too appropriate and too unfair.

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