2. It is recognized that the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime in the trial and reflects the mistake, that the Defendant and the victim D were in a relationship with the victim, and that the Defendant did not have any previous penalty or any heavier punishment.

However, the crime of this case begins by introducing the victim as the single mother under 36 years of age, even though the defendant was married as 45 years of age at the time, and was a woman with her child, and her child was in school with the victim. From the victim, 5 million won in the name of the mother's hospital expenses, 5.3 million won in the name of the defendant's bridge treatment expenses, 5.3 million won in the name of the defendant's bridge treatment expenses, 23.9 million won in the name of her mother's house deposit and household expenses, and 19.9 million won in the name of her mother's house in the name of her mother, and the crime of this case was not caused by the alteration in the name of the defendant without authority. The defendant used part of the above money for her sex surgery expenses, and received the deposit money by using the altered contract, and the damage was not recovered to the victim at all until her trial, and the defendant's age, environment, family relationship, occupation, circumstances leading to the crime of this case, etc.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.