The defendant reflects the mistake, and the criminal defendant has no profit to the defendant by delivering the money of fraud to C, and the victim has cancelled the complaint with respect to the defendant by fully repaying the damage.

However, even though the defendant had a record of severe punishment for the same kind of crime, he/she again commits the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, in light of the contents of deception, etc., the nature of the crime is not very good, and the amount of damage is not much significant.

In addition, it is recognized that the victim's withdrawal of the complaint against the defendant by agreement with the victim by the accomplice C, but it does not seem that the damage has been repaid in accordance with the contents of the agreement.

On the other hand, the circumstance that the defendant's acquisition of profits is not high due to the crime of this case is recognized.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion and is too unreasonable in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the background and method of the instant crime; (b) the degree of damage and the recovery of damage; (c) the motive and motive for the crime; (d) the circumstances after the crime; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, family environment, etc.; and (d) the overall circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as shown in

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to appeal.