The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment).

2. Although all of the charges of this case are recognized by the defendant's mistake, it is against depth, and since each of the crimes of this case is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the court below where the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, the punishment of this case should be imposed in consideration of equity between the crimes of this case and the crimes of this case at the same time under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. However, the defendant has already been punished several times due to the same crime of this case and has been punished by fines and imprisonment, and the amount of damage suffered by the victims is not smaller than 2 years and 8 months since each of the crimes of this case was committed by the defendant, and about 4 years and 9 months have already passed since the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, it cannot be viewed that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victims by compensating the victims or by agreement with the victims, the motive and circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case, the defendant's age before and circumstances that were too unfair.

3. As such, 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.

However, among the judgment of the court below, the first head of the crime stated in the judgment below that "the defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 27, 2013 and completed the execution of the sentence on March 27, 2014." "The defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 27, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 4, 2014." It is obvious that "the defendant was erroneous at the end of the judgment of the court below."