2. The judgment of the defendant seems to be less than the amount of the profits actually acquired by the defendant and the amount of the final damage of the victims by repaying a part of the amount acquired through deception to the victims, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment more than the suspended execution is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant acquired a large amount of money or property from many victims for a long time, paid some amount of money to prevent the victims from being doubtful, thereby expanding the damage by continuing transactions, actively deceiving the victims who trusted the defendant due to a long-term transaction and making it difficult to repay more money to the victims, and the victims are likely to suffer considerable economic difficulties due to the defendant's crime. Nevertheless, the fact that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines (two to six years of imprisonment), it is difficult to deem that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

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.