2. The judgment that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case is favorable to the defendant, or that the defendant acquired the amount of damage of this case on several occasions, and did not repay it to the victim who has a pro-friendly relationship with him for a considerable period of time, although the defendant paid part of the amount to the lending institution from April 2012, this is a measure after a considerable period of time has already elapsed since the date of the crime of this case, and the victim has already been able to have suffered economic and psychological suffering in relation to the repayment of loans for a long period of time, and in light of the total amount of damage, it is difficult to say that the amount paid by the lending institution was not yet recovered, and that the defendant would have agreed with the victim in the court of first instance, but actually agreed with the victim.

In full view of the circumstances, such as the fact that there is no circumstance to recognize that the defendant made a considerable effort to recover agreement or damage, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the motive and circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation and family relationship, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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.