2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant is based on the time when the crime of this case is committed and against the defendant.

However, even if the defendant did not intend to work as a seafarer even after receiving a prepaid payment from the victim, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by deceiving the victim one million won with the prepaid payment to work as a seafarer, and the victim makes a false statement. It is deemed that the defendant received money from the victim and immediately escaped, and thus, the crime is not good to be committed as a planned crime. The defendant has been punished twice as a fine under the same law. In addition, the defendant received money from the crew although he did not intend to work as a seafarer, he did not want to pay the borrowed money. The defendant received the borrowed money with no intention to work as a seafarer, and received double wages on the condition that he did not delegate the payment of wages to another person on the condition that he was paid the prepaid payment, and thus, he repeated the crime similar to the crime of this case, such as receiving double wages, without any specific legal order, and even if there is no reason to maintain his livelihood through his own efforts, the defendant's motive to commit the crime of this case and there is no reason to believe that the defendant's environmental punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.