2. The fact that a financial transaction was conducted by inputting the information of the victim during the period in which the victim was in de facto marital relationship with the victim, it appears that the victim did not have any objection, and that the victim did not raise any objection to the request for payment order, and that the victim did not raise any objection to the request for payment order, thereby obtaining a title for the return of the defrauded money (However, since the amount corresponding to the money obtained by deception has been deposited in the original court, it cannot be deemed that there was a change of circumstances to the extent that the judgment of the first instance court should be reversed),

However, the fact that it was aware that the right to enter the victim's information was lost due to the failure of de facto marriage at the time of crime, and that the amount obtained by fraud is not significant is disadvantageous.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

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