2. The fact that 14 million won was returned out of the amount of the judgment fraud, the fact that the crime is against the crime, and the fact that there is no criminal record of embezzlement is favorable.

However, the amount of fraud reaches 61 million won, and 47 million won is still not returned among them (the defendant paid 47 million won to J as a creditor for the victim).

However, there is no evidence to see that the J is a creditor against the victim (the existence of a claim cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the J prepared a written complaint against the victim as the defendant) and the J received the above money from the defendant.

Since there are no financial data to regard the above subrogation claim as a sentencing factor favorable to the above subrogation claim, the victim is punished by the defendant, the crime of this case was committed during the repeated crime period, and the criminal record of the property crime was two times more unfavorable.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the motive and background of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the previous theories, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.