The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the crime No. 1 in the judgment below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the judgment below: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the judgment of the court below recognized the crime of this case and reflects it, and the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below should consider the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered together with the case where the judgment was made.

However, considering the fact that there are several criminal records for the defendant for the same kind of crime, the fact that the quality of the crime is not good, the amount of damage is very large, the damage was not recovered, the victims did not receive a letter, and the defendant committed the crime continuously during the trial of the case.

In full view of the records and arguments of this case, there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court's punishment is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[2] However, the court below’s judgment on the 4th page “1. A” is a clerical error in the police statement of “1. B,” and “2608, the 5th page “2016 order order” was a clerical error of “2017 order order 2812,” and “a certificate of cash custody of 1.1. order 5th page “1.” is a clerical error of “1. transaction details, financial transaction details, A account statement (SC bank), A transaction statement (SC bank), and A transaction statement (new compromise)”. Thus, the court below’s judgment on the 5th page 6th order is a clerical error of “25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.” The court below’s judgment on the 5th page 5th order is correct ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.