2. The judgment of the court below is that there are favorable circumstances such as the confession of all the crimes in the case of this case and the fact that the defendant made an agreement with some victims about his mistake, but there was a history of punishment for the same crime. In particular, on April 8, 2010, the Seoul Western District Court committed each of the crimes in this case even though there was a record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years due to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act due to the crime similar to the crimes in this case, which was committed in the Seoul Western District Court on April 8, 2010, the crime in this case committed each of the crimes in this case. The degree of participation in each of the crimes in the crime in this case, such as the defendant's overall management of business and explanation of goods, is not easy, and the business period of each of the crimes in this case is not short, and there are considerable profits from each of the crimes in this case. The crime in this case is extremely poor in that the defendant took advantage of the fact against the elderly who lacks ability to judge.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term “1. concurrent crimes” as provided in Article 6 of the judgment of the court below is as follows.