2. The Defendant, by recognizing all of the instant crimes, appears not only to cooperate in the investigation but also to repent of his mistake.

The defendant partly compensated the victim for a part of the defrauded money.

Defendant did not have any criminal record identical to each of the crimes in this case.

It seems that the health or economic conditions of the defendant are not good.

Defendant has family members to be supported.

However, in consideration of the method of each of the crimes in this case, the total amount of damage, etc., the criminal liability of the defendant is not easy.

The victim has maintained his/her intent to punish the accused.

Defendants shall have the past record of criminal punishment for a period of four times.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, method and consequence of the crime, etc. are added to all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments, there is no new circumstance to deem that the sentencing conditions of the court below against the defendant have been changed in the first instance court, and it is not determined that the sentencing of the court below is too unfair because it exceeds the reasonable discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.