2. The judgment that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, the amount of individual damage incurred by each of the crimes of this case itself is not significant, and the victims who agreed with both the victims of the theft except the victim N and do not want punishment against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant was punished about about 20 times for the same type of fraud and larceny, and committed each of the crimes of this case again during the same repeated period, and the recovery of the crime has reached about 10 times and many victims are disadvantageous to the defendant. In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case including these circumstances, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant shall be deemed to fall under the category 1 of recommended type 1 (Larceny) which may be sentenced to the defendant, [the scope of recommending type 1] of general property [1 year and 6-6 years] of special aggravation (1 year and 6-6 years) of special aggravation area (the scope of recommending type] of special aggravation area (1 year and 6-6 years), crimes 2 (Fraud), [the scope of recommending type] of general fraud [the scope of recommending type] [10 million won] and the aggravated area (1-2 years and 6 months] of punishment for the same type of repeated crime under the category 1 (the scope of special aggravated crimes] of punishment, and it cannot be deemed to fall short of the minimum limit of punishment for 1 to 6-6 months and six months.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.