The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service work 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, the fact that the court below agreed smoothly with the victim, and the fact that the defendant's health is not good due to depression, etc. is favorable.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by defraudation by receiving the advance payment even though there is no intent to engage in the act, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant has the record of punishment several times by such means as above, and the record of punishment for fraud reaches 40 times or more.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the lower court appears to have determined punishment in light of all the above circumstances, and it does not seem to be unfair because the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendant’s appeal is clearly a clerical error in the “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on the Criminal Procedure” of the 2nd page 13 of the judgment of the court below on the ground that it is obvious that the “Article 25(1) of the Act on the Criminal Procedure is a clerical error