2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant led to the confession of and against the instant crime, voluntarily surrenders to certain crimes (2016 high-class 869), the fact that a considerable number of victims have agreed to pay the amount of damages and deposited the amount of damages (2016 high-class 68, 572, 838, 99, 1247, and 9 of the total amount of 2016 high-class 869), the fact that the amount of embezzlement damages has been recovered, and that the total amount of the damages of the rest victims has not been significantly significant.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime against many and unspecified persons continuously and repeatedly, and the nature of the crime is very bad; (b) the Defendant has committed the instant crime without being aware of the nature of the crime; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period for the same kind of crime; (d) there is no special change in circumstances after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; and and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant argument, including the Defendant’s age, criminal background, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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