2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s instant crime is in a concurrent relationship with the attempts to commit fraud, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud, etc., and the fact that the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal

However, in full view of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed a crime of the same kind of law with the intent to gain economic benefits, the victim's damage has not been completely recovered, and other factors such as the Defendant's age, criminal record, relation, sex, occupation, occupation, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court's punishment is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the lower court’s dismissal on August 4, 2012 and the attempted fraud, etc. finalized on August 4, 2012 by the lower court).

The part of "criminal facts" was determined and stated.

According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Suwon Friwon on February 5, 2016 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 8, 2016. As such, all of the instant crimes and each of the crimes for which the above judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to punishment for the instant crime in consideration of equity in cases where the instant crime and each of the above crimes for which judgment have become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are concurrently adjudicated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). In the records, each of the above final and conclusive judgments has been submitted, and the lower court has duly examined evidence, and the lower court has duly completed evidence.