The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds for appeal (the grounds for appeal) recognizes all of the instant crimes, and is contrary to the recognition of all the instant crimes, the amount acquired by deception is not much high, and the fact that equity is to be considered with the case where the judgment was rendered together with the final and conclusive crimes, etc. is to be considered in favor of the Defendant.

However, in light of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and three months for fraud on April 14, 2009; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period after being released from prison by being sentenced to imprisonment on April 14, 2009; (c) the victims did not reach an agreement up to the trial; and (d) there were no circumstances to deem that the Defendant was taking measures to recover from damage; and (c) the above favorable circumstances appears to have already been taken into account in the lower court.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the phrase “1. In the case of detention in the workhouse” under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act is apparent that the phrase “Article 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act” is a clerical error under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act, and thus, it is apparent that it is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Thus, the ex officio correction

.