2. The judgment of the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake while making a confession of the instant crime, and the Defendant returned KRW 2.5 million to the victim I, etc. are considered favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have obtained nine victims by deceiving the defendant to pay the time limit money without intent or ability to operate the number system, or by deceiving money under the name of intent or ability to repay the time limit money. In light of the crime method, content, frequency, and amount of deception, etc., the crime of this case is significant; the defendant has a record of being subject to criminal punishment several times due to frauds; the defendant was sentenced to punishment for a crime of fraud and was released during the prison, but the parole period has not elapsed, and the crime of this case began to be committed after the lapse of the parole period; the defendant did not take any measures to recover the victims' damage; and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.