The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the entire crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the victim appears to have lent much amount of money to the victim for the purpose of receiving high interest without thoroughly checking the operation method of the “number of days” in the name of the Defendant, the possibility of realizing profit, etc., is also deemed to have considerable responsibility for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage. The fact that the Defendant appears to have repaid the victim a large amount of money of KRW 380 million to the principal and interest of the Defendant in the course of the crime of this case is favorable to the Defendant.

However, when the Defendant was unable to repay the principal and interest of the loan to the previous owners because it was difficult to recover the money borrowed from another person with no money borrowed from him/her without any other person’s own funds, the Defendant paid the interest on the third part of the month and returned the principal within two months if he/she requested the return of the principal.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed continuously over a considerable period of time and the amount of fraud amount, the crime of this case is very poor in view of the fact that the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the damaged person and deceiving the victim about about 91,350,000 won through a total of 3 years and 5 months.

The Defendant paid a considerable amount of the Defendant’s repayment to the victim as part of the prevention of deception or return (the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the victim by borrowing money from other bonds in order to continuously borrow money from the damaged party, or by borrowing money from the damaged party as the principal and interest of the victim). On October 2016, the Defendant did not make efforts to recover the damage of the victim after the Defendant was temporarily locked and the damaged person was aware of the Defendant’s criminal act.