2. The fact that the Defendant made a confession of the instant crime while committing the instant crime, the Defendant agreed to do so with the victim C, and the fact that the instant crime ought to be considered in consideration of equity with the case where the Defendant simultaneously rendered a judgment in relation to the special robbery for which the judgment became final and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, if the crime of this case lends money necessary for the distribution of livestock products without the intent or ability of the defendant to repay the borrowed money, it would be repaid three days later, by deceiving the victims to do so. In light of the criminal law, contents, and the amount of fraud, etc., the crime of this case is grave, and the damage recovery is not properly performed yet, and all of the sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, and family environment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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

(3) Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure provides that “The term “2015” in Part 8 of the lower judgment is clear that it is a clerical error of “2014,” and thus, ex officio rectification is to be made.