2. It is recognized that the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake, that the Defendant is a family member to support the Defendant, and that the Defendant had no record of being sentenced to suspended sentence or heavier punishment.

However, each of the crimes of this case does not seem to have been agreed until victims and the victims were recovered, and it does not seem that the court below's sentencing conditions in the records such as the victim's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case and circumstances after the crime of this case, considering the following circumstances: (a) the defendant neglected the victim's back warning, etc. to the victim H and the rest victims for about one year and six months; and (b) the victim acquired approximately KRW 35 million in total from the victims; (c) the victim's background and occupation are included in the course of each of the crimes of this case; and (d) the victim's damage was not recovered; (e) the victims were anticipated to suffer economic difficulties; (e) the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crimes; and (e) the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crimes; and (e) the defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to each of the crimes of this case, and circumstances after the crime.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case 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.

(However, the judgment of the court below is clearly erroneous in the statement of "Feb. 14 February 2013" in Part 9 of the fourth part of the judgment below, because it is apparent that it is a clerical error in the statement of "Feb. 14 February 201".