2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant led to confession and reflect on the instant crime, most victims [the victim J,O (N related to a corporation), R, and T] in the original trial, recovered from damage, agreed with the said victims, and that the health of the said victims is not good.

B. However, even though the Defendant has been punished twice by a fine for fraud, once a suspended sentence, three times of fines, and one time of a fine due to drinking driving, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes repeatedly against many victims, committed fraud or larceny, and driven a vehicle in a state of non-license or drinking, and made the traffic accident. In full view of the circumstances agreed with most victims as above, the lower court determined punishment by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, circumstances leading up to the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering the above circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

C. 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.