2. The fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes, thereby reflecting the wrongness of the defendant, and that the defendant has been growing up in an unsound environment due to the separation of his parents at the time when the defendant was committed, is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is very heavy in light of the method and content of the crime, frequency of the crime, etc., by inducing the victims who have sought money loans or jobs to engage in sexual intercourse or by deceiving money and valuables from victims or their family members several times.

The defendant committed the crime of this case by taking advantage of the old situation of the victims who are economically weak, and the victims seem to have suffered considerable mental suffering.

In addition, on August 24, 2016, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, even though he was sentenced to two years of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. on August 24, 2016.

The defendant did not receive a letter from the victims, and did not recover from the damage.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is correct.