2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected each of the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant appears to have been actually acquired due to each of the instant crimes, that the Defendant agreed with L, that Co-Defendant A agreed with the victims, that the Co-Defendant A of the first instance court agreed with the victims, and that the victims would have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damage by paying the investment without specific verification of the details of the business, because of the dead desire to obtain high profit in a short period of time.

On the other hand, as the defendant had known of high-income through virtual currency, he deceivings 29 victims, received investment money exceeding KRW 260 million by the method of fund-raising without delay, and acquired it by fraud, and the damage to victims up to now seems not to have been restored to a considerable part, and the fact that the defendant has been sentenced three times as a crime of the same kind, etc. is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, health, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.