The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognizes all of the instant crimes, and is contrary to all, and the equity should be taken into account in the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the judgment of the lower court was rendered.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendant sold valuable goods to the victims 11 times in total.

It is not good that there is fraud by deceiving money, and there is no good way to commit the crime, and there is a lot of frequency to commit the crime, so the quality of the crime is not good.

In particular, even though the defendant was under repeated crime due to the same crime, he committed the crime of this case, and did not receive a letter from the victims or did not pay for the victims until the time of the trial.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da1024, Apr. 5, 2017). However, the phrase “2017Da124,” “2017Da123,” “2017Da9,” “2017123,” and “2017Da205, Nov. 21, 2017.” As such, it is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error in each of the “20