The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (limited to four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of probation and community service order) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the judgment defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and partially deposited the amount of damage for the recovery of the victim D is favorable to the defendant.

However, there is a record of punishment such as suspended execution due to other crimes. The crime of this case is not good for the victim who has been in a state of bankruptcy due to the excess of the obligation and acquired money through abuse of the pretext of processing the case such as bankruptcy and exemption from liability. Nevertheless, the defendant has attempted to flee through several times in the court below's trial proceedings to the effect that he would agree with the victims, and in light of the economic situation of the victims, etc., the damage is relatively excessive. The damage is not sufficiently recovered up to now, and the damage is not sufficiently recovered, the defendant is difficult to see that his mistake is divided or against others, and all kinds of sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc. are considered as inappropriate. Thus, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is obvious that "Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act, and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the