Judgment

The lower court, taking into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant, even though he did not have the right to maintain the request for the payment order, by deceiving D and by deceiving the money to be returned to the Emergency Countermeasure Committee for the performance of other victims' damage, and the amount of defraudation exceeds KRW 800 million and the damage has not been completely recovered, determined the sentence against the Defendant in consideration of the recommended sentencing guidelines of the

The sentencing of the court below seems to have been determined appropriately by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances to be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below until the trial is held.

In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions in pleadings, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, circumstances and results after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable to escape from the reasonable scope of discretion by considering the following factors: the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, criminal records, circumstances after the crime was committed.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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.