2. Although there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the facts charged of this case, the defendant did not agree with the victim C, N, R, and T, and that the victimO received a deposit of KRW 20 million for the lease of the apartment that the defendant's family lives and disposed of the motor vehicle in the name of the defendant's wife and appears to have been partly recovered from the amount of damage, the defendant could not be found to have been punished several times for the same fraud crimes. On the other hand, the defendant committed the crime of this case for the repeated crime period of the same crime, the amount of the money acquired by the defendant exceeds KRW 240 million,000,000,000,000 for the repeated crime period of the same crime, the victimO, W and T, there are no special changes in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below, and there are no other unfair reasons for the court below to recognize that the defendant's punishment should be too undue considering the defendant's environmental records and arguments.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit and is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da36442, May 8, 2015). However, the Defendant’s appeal is obvious that it is a clerical error in the name of “ around May 8, 2015” under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the said Rules.