2. The circumstances in which the Defendant still remains young and is breaking up with depth of the crime are considered favorable.

However, multiple goods frauds of this case committed by the defendant in collusion with A are acquired money of victims by malicious deception, and it is necessary to severely punish the victims as well as to inflict damage on each victim, and further to undermine the overall trust of our society.

In addition, the crime of special injury, etc. committed by the Defendant through driving of a motor vehicle cannot be deemed to have been committed at all by the victim. However, the Defendant who intentionally shocked the victim’s vehicle is a dangerous crime that could not be implied in that the Defendant was able to cause a large-scale accident that may cause a large damage not only to the victim but also to the follow-up driver.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the details of the crime of fraud in entertainment centers; (b) the method of deception; and (c) the Defendant’s release from a prison after being sentenced to a heavy punishment for any other type of crime; and (d) the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes as long as it was long as he/she was committed during the period of repeated crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair by excessively

Therefore, the defendant's double punishment cannot be accepted.

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