2. The lower court determined that ① the Defendant deceivings the victims to use the Internet gambling fund, etc., and acquired money by deceptioning them, in light of the motive and content of the crime, frequency of the crime and the amount of money acquired by deception, etc., the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period, and the Defendant seriously infringed upon the victim D’s trust who borrowed the real money in good faith, and pretended to be able to repay by means of transferring the money acquired in the process. The victims did not take any particular measures to recover damage, but did not take any measures to recover damage, the Defendant’s liability is highly likely to be harsh, and the victims want to be harsh, and the Defendant’s severe punishment is considered as favorable to the Defendant. ② The Defendant took into account the following factors: ③ the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc.; and ② the Defendant’s punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 4 years as to the Defendant stated in the lower court’s oral proceedings and the circumstances after the crime.

In full view of the factors and sentencing criteria as shown in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

shall not be assessed.

B. In addition, there are no circumstances to recognize that the lower court’s maintenance of the lower court’s sentencing decision is unfair, considering the circumstances that the lower court had already taken into account while determining the Defendant’s punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.