2. The lower court determined that: (a) considering the fact that the amount of damage caused by each of the instant crimes is relatively low; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime for the purpose of maintaining his/her livelihood; and (c) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects them, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a punishment by taking into account fraud, attempted fraud, and the crime of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act based on the scope of the recommended punishment (two to four years) for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the general category of habitual and repeated larceny (the general category), which is the basic area (the year and four years) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, after the mitigation of discretionary mitigation; and (d) there are no special circumstances or changes that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; and (e) other various circumstances,

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.