2. The determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant made a statement that he confessions the criminal facts of this case and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) there are no criminal records having the same kind of criminal records and beyond the fine; (c) economic circumstances are not sufficiently sufficient; and (d) the Defendant’s long-term detention may entail excessive difficulty to his dependants; and (b) the circumstances favorable to the

However, the crime of fraud of this case committed by the defendant is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the content, method, and degree of damage, etc. of the crime, which caused serious damage to the victim of hearing impaired, which is a basic living recipient, even though the victim did not make efforts to achieve the agreement or complete recovery of damage up to now, the possibility of damage recovery in the future was imminent, and the defendant did not appear at the trial date of the court below due to the decrease in the location of the court below's decision. The court below seems to have sentenced a sentence lower than the maximum sentence of the recommended sentence set by the sentencing guidelines in consideration of various circumstances of the defendant, and there is no special change of circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below at the trial of this case, and the court below did not change the defendant's age, character, character and environment, intelligence and environment, motive and background of the crime of this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, family relation, etc., the court below's decision of the defendant cannot be justified and it is not justified.

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.