The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and six months) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all the facts charged of the instant case and reflects the Defendant, and the Defendant was the first offender without any previous conviction, and the victim M did not want the Defendant’s punishment. However, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, method, the number of victims, and the amount of damages, etc., if the sum of the damages incurred by the instant crime exceeds KRW 890 million, the Defendant appears to have failed to pay a considerable amount of damages to the victims, and the Defendant appears to have paid a certain amount of damages to the victims, such as KRW 64 million, interest, KRW 158620,00 (No. 2, No. 2, No. 4715 of the Evidence Record No. 2, No. 4715 of the High Court records No. 2015), the principal amount to the victim I is merely deemed to have been repaid to the victims (No. 36 of the Evidence No. 5173 of the Evidence No. 1, 2015).

The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant transferred money exceeding the amount of damage to the victimO from January 2001 to January 201, 201, to the victimO, but the Defendant did not specify the amount of physical repayment for the victimO’s loan out of the above remittance details at an investigation agency (as seen above, 2016 high group No. 1699 evidence No. 123), and if the Defendant partly repaid the victim’s debt by remitting money above the amount of damage as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion by taking into account the following: (a) documents, such as a transfer contract for the franchise franchise contract, a money borrowing certificate, etc. (as alleged by the Defendant, a transfer contract for the franchise agreement, and a money borrowing certificate (debt confirmation document) around January 2012, 201 (2016 high group No. 1699).

In the future, there is no possibility for victims to properly recover from damage, and there is no special change in circumstances that change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below.