The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant appealed on the ground that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, namely, ① the Defendant committed a multiple repeatedly during the short period of a repeated crime due to the same crime during the period of a repeated crime, and the quality of the crime is not good; ② the victims' damage is not less and the victims' damage is not completely recovered; ③ the victims' P, S, and V submitted a written agreement has already been returned to the investigative agency; ③ the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account the circumstances in which the damaged goods have been returned to some victims as favorable to the Defendant, and the lower court determined the punishment by taking into account the circumstances in which the damaged goods have been returned to the victims as above, and it is difficult to view that there is a change in circumstances that can reduce the punishment only because the Defendant agreed with the victims of the same crime. In full view of all the sentencing conditions, it is unreasonable to deem that the lower court’s punishment imposed on the Defendant for the reasons as stated in its reasoning is too unreasonable.

Therefore, 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.

[However, among the summary of the evidence of the lower judgment, “1. Investigation Report” is added to “2018 Highest 2280” and “1.9.14” is corrected to “ September 22, 2018,” the date and time of the crime under paragraph (1) of this Article, “2017.9.14,” and the “two credit card and one security card” is added to the damaged goods under paragraph (4) of this Article, and the “influence” is corrected to “influent” in the method of the crime.