2. It should be recognized that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, committed a mistake, and reached an agreement with the victims of the fraud.

However, the Defendant has committed multiple offenses without any awareness of any particular crime and repeatedly committed each of the instant frauds in several times, and upon reporting to the police, it is very bad to commit such crimes as causing difficulties in investigation by speaking false personal information, or impairing one’s own frauds by accompanying the crime of aiding and abetting the signature of the police.

In addition, there are several records of punishment for frauds due to theless reception of the law similar to each of the crimes in this case.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant.

Of the reasons for the sentencing, the lower court took account of the following factors: “The Defendant committed several times again a crime even though he/she was sentenced to the same punishment as the instant crime in 2009 and 2010 on two occasions”; however, the Defendant appears to have been sentenced to each sentence in the first instance court and the appellate court on the same case.

However, even if these circumstances are considered, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.