2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the determination, and that the instant crime was committed by the Defendant on October 11, 2013 and was sentenced nine months to imprisonment by the Ulsan District Court on December 13, 2013, and was in the concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud, which became final and conclusive on December 13, 2013 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the equity between the case to be adjudicated concurrently pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should be considered

However, the records of punishment for the defendant as the same crime reached 12 times, and the amount of damage caused by the crime of this case reaches 11,700,000 won, and the defendant did not make a serious effort to pay damage to the defendant and did not agree with the defendant and the victim until the trial is held. The circumstances favorable to the defendant have already been considered in the court below, and there was no special change in circumstances or circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of October 6, 201 of the first page 20-21 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment was finalized.

“The foregoing ruling was finally binding on December 13, 2013,” and is corrected to “the foregoing ruling.”