The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized both of his mistake and reflected against himself, agreed with the victim C, and recovered part of the damage of the victim F.

On the other hand, however, the crime of this case is committed in the absence of the intent or ability of the defendant to pay the price for the work to the victims, and has considerable damage to the fraudulent criminal who acquired property benefits until the trial at the trial. In particular, the defendant has been punished eight times or more, and there is no special circumstance or circumstance that may be newly considered for the same crime in around 2005, and there is no change in the sentencing. In full view of balance with the criminal punishment for other crimes similar to the crime of this case, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, occupation and environment, family relationship, as well as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted. Thus, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[4] However, the court below's judgment's application of the applicable provisions of the Act on 1. Criminal Procedure is clearly stated as an error under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, since "the pertinent provisions of the Act on 1. Criminal Procedure and the choice of punishment", and "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act" is clearly stated as an error under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is corrected as ex officio dismissal of the above.