2. The fact that the Defendant made a confession and reflects all of the instant crimes, the Defendant has no criminal records other than the criminal punishment of suspended sentence in 1984, and the victim G does not want the punishment against the Defendant in the first instance is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by deceiving the victims who were in a close-friendly relationship for a long time, and the nature of the crime is significant. Although the victim G does not want the punishment of the defendant, actual damage is not made even though the victim G does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the scope of recommendation according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court is from 2 years and 6 years to 3 months (the decision of type). The defendant's assertion that the defendant's argument that the punishment of this case is appropriate within the scope of the defendant's oral argument is not accepted, in full view of the following factors: (a) where the victim G has repeatedly committed a crime over a considerable period (the victim G expressed his intention not to punish him, but the victim G expressed his intention not to punish him; (b) the victim's damage amount was 25,170,000 won, while the victim C's damage amount was 153,470,000 won, the victim's damage amount was not considered to be a special form of punishment of the victim G / [the scope of imprisonment] 2 years to 6 to 6 to 6 months or 6 years.

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