The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered a sentence, taking into account not only nine-time frauds and larcenys, but also the fact that the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime, the number of crimes is very high and considerable damages have not been recovered; provided, however, that the Defendant’s mistake is still against himself/herself, is still against his/her age, and certain

Although the defendant was found to have recovered from the injury of the victim Q, AR, and P and agreed with the above victims, the crime liability is very heavy in light of the frequency, methods, and patterns of each of the crimes of this case, and the degree and degree of the injury of the victimJ is not somewhat weak.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the oral argument of the court below and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the court below is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

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