2. The judgment of the Defendant shows the form of recognizing and reflecting the crime.

The Defendant agreed with the victim of fraud.

There is no record of punishment exceeding a fine, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime.

However, the Defendant did not pay the service cost of KRW 190 million following the conclusion of the service contract with the defrauded, even though it is not good in the financial condition of the company, and did not pay the service cost of KRW 190 million following the conclusion of the service contract with the defrauded. Moreover, as the Defendant was subject to provisional seizure from the defrauded, the Defendant created a false bill claim with the intent to escape compulsory execution. In light of the motive, content, and size of the defrauded, etc., the crime

On the other hand, the Defendant failed to pay approximately KRW 30 million to retired workers, and did not recover damages even if the amount of overdue wages was not significant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, as shown in the records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not 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.