2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the defendant confessions the criminal facts of this case and expresses that his mistake is divided; (b) the defendant, as a basic livelihood recipient, has expressed his/her economic condition that he/she does not want the punishment of the defendant; (c) the victim who interfered with his/her business in the course of the investigation has expressed his/her intention not to want the punishment of the defendant; and (d)

Meanwhile, in light of the means, methods, and results, etc., each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant is deemed to be inferior and heavy, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period without being aware of the fact that he had been punished several times as a crime of the same or similar kind, without being aware of the fact that he had been punished several times as a result of the crime, and there is no special change in circumstances that make the judgment of the court below different from the punishment of this case. In full view of all other circumstances, including the defendant's age, character, conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, family relation, criminal record relation, health condition, etc., the punishment of the defendant sentenced by the court below is deemed to be unfair because it is not reasonable

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.