2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and against the mistake, and that the crime of this case is generally committed by the Defendant, and that the Defendant said that he/she would be treated as alcohol in the future.

However, in light of the content, frequency, and method of each of the instant crimes, the nature of the crime is very poor, and even though the degree of damage suffered by 13 victims of the instant crime is not somewhat weak, the damage recovery was not made up to the trial, and it was not made against the victims.

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant had the ability to punish the Defendant for committing the same type of crime, such as fraud and assault, and committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the period of repeated crime.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and the new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.