Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the court below’s sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself; (b) the extent of damage or the amount of profit is not significant; and (c) the Defendant appears to be not healthy due to the aftermath of a traffic accident.

However, even though the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, he/she did not know about the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the same several Acts within the short period of repeated crime, and committed the same crime within the short period of repeated crime, the defendant did not agree with the victims and did not recover damage. Other unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee for each of the crimes of this case: 1.2 types of larceny crimes, 2 types of special sentencing (general larceny), special sentencing factors for general property (the same type of repeated crime), determination of the recommended sentencing area (one hundred to two years), scope of recommendation sentence (one hundred to half years), three crimes under the scope of recommendation sentence (one hundred million won), general fraud categories, no special sentencing person (one hundred million won or more), the court below's decision on the scope of recommendation (one to six years or more).

3. As the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. Pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the reasoning for changing the term “Article 70(3)3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business” to “Article 70(1)3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business,” among “Article 70(1)3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business,” and changing to “Article 70(1)3 of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business,” the reason for stating the applicable provisions in the indictment, by clarifying the legal evaluation of the facts charged, to assist the determination of the scope of prosecution, and the Defendant’s intention