The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing of the defendant) appears to have been involved in the crime of this case as a mere cash delivery liability without knowing well the structure or specific meaning of the fraudulent act of this case as a person with a disability of class 3 intellectual disability. In light of the fact that the defendant, as a basic living recipient, made efforts to take a job and conduct economic activities, but the defendant's failure to do so, led to the crime of this case as a result of the crime of this case, the victims suffered damage, made an agreement to recover damage, and the victims have not been punished, and the family members of the defendant have promised to pay attention to the prevention of recidivism, the punishment of the court below (one year and ten months) is unfair.

2. The judgment of the court below seems to have resulted in the crime of this case after the defendant left the workplace where the defendant was a recipient of the interest on the disabled with mental disorder 3 as a recipient of the disabled with mental disability, who was going through the disclosure of personal information, and appears to have been caused to commit the crime of this case. The defendant cooperates with the investigation by revealing the contact details of the person who ordered the singishing fraud and the deposit account, etc. with the investigation agency, and the defendant's family's efforts to recover some damage to the victims of the fraud and agree that all the victims of the fraud have expressed their intention not to punish the victims of the fraud. The defendant shows that his mistake was divided by fully recognizing the crime in the course of the investigation and trial, submitting a rebuttal statement, etc., and his family members expressed their intent to protect the defendant's wife with his preference.

However, the Defendant completed imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year period and committed a crime of lending physical cards during the period of repeated crime. As such, the Defendant took part in the crime of lending physical cards more than twice in a considerable amount of damage to the Defendant, and the nature of the crime is bad. The defrauded D is still 10 million won.