The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant has committed multiple offenses against many unspecified victims, and is more criticized than ordinary cases in that the Defendant repeats the same crime during the period of repeated crimes due to the same veterinary act’s fraudulent act.

Prior to the instant case, the Defendant has already been punished for the same kind of crime (including imprisonment with prison labor) and continuously repeated similar crimes without any awareness of any particular crime, and it is judged that the risk of recidivism is very high.

The Defendant used most of the damages due to entertainment and living expenses, etc., and did not endeavor to recover from damage.

The victims expressed their wish to punish the defendant because they did not agree with the victims other than the victims D.

Considering these disadvantageous circumstances, it is inevitable to severely punish the accused.

However, the defendant recognizes all of his errors and is against the law.

Although there are a large number of crimes, individual damages per crime itself are relatively small (a total of 2.41 million won). Some victims agreed with the victim that the victim does not wish to punish the defendant.

These circumstances can be considered in light of the favorable circumstances for the defendant.

In addition, considering the motive and background of each of the instant offenses, means and methods, circumstances before and after the commission of the offense, the age of the accused, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the two kinds of punishments and similar cases as shown in the arguments of the instant case are considered to be unfair because the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.