2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant is divided into his mistake, that the amount of personal defraudation is not so big, that some victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, and that part of the damage has been discharged.

However, the Defendant not only has the record of fines, suspension of execution, and punishment for the same type of crime and interference with business, but also has committed repeatedly each of the crimes of this case without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the crime of fraud and interference with business, and considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under the foregoing provision (Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on March 25, 2017, the term “as of March 24, 2017,” “the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error in writing,” and the summary of the evidence is “as of March 25, 2017, 2017, 3970, the Defendant’s respective police statements in G, so it is apparent that the ex officio correction and addition are made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure.