The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three years and six months) on the defendant is too unreasonable, due to the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the following circumstances are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant had been replaced by the facts pertaining to the remaining crimes except the crime of uttering of the above investigation document from the original trial; (b) the Defendant made a confession of all the instant crimes in the first instance trial; (c) the victims of the crime of forgery of a private document have been led to the recovery of damage; (d) the victim of the crime of forgery of a private document does not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (e) his family members want the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant; (c) the Defendant has not been punished for the same crime; (d) the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime; and (e) the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime beyond the suspended sentence; and (e) the Defendant has to support the parents, wife, and children of the aged who

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the defendant by approaching G, the representative of which the defendant would sell fertilizers of the victim FF farming association, and entered into an entrustment contract for business, and by using fertilizers equivalent to a total of 528,00,000,000 won, and by deceiving the victim G, in addition, by deceiving the victim G, and by forging each letter of payment of goods to be made by the joint guarantor of I who is one of his own members who is urged by the victim G to pay the fertilizer amount, and then delivered it to G. In light of the crime’s circumstance and contents, damage amount, etc., each crime was very bad, and the defendant used the amount of KRW 19,00,000 for personal consumption of the fertilizer sales amount of KRW 190,000,000,000 among the fertilizer sales amount. Nevertheless, the victim FF farming association suffered considerable property damage due to the defendant’s fraud, the defendant did not take any measures to recover damage to the victims of the crime up to the trial.