The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable (three years of imprisonment).

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and against the mistake, and that the Defendant came to a trial, and that it was favorable for the Defendant that the said victims did not want to be punished by the Defendant under a mutual agreement with P, Q, R and the victim of embezzlement.

On the other hand, the amount of fraud reaches 340 million won in total, and the amount of embezzlement reaches 4450,000 won in total, and the damage of the defrauded C and D has not been recovered, and the fact that the defendant has the same criminal record is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances and results of each of the crimes in this case, etc., all of the sentencing conditions in this case and the result of the application of sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court sentencing committee.

1. Standards for types of punishment and of punishment;

(a) Aggravation of fraud [Determination of Punishment] In the case of fraud (Determination of Punishment] types 2 (at least 100 million won, but less than 500 million won): General Fraud (Special Aggravations): Where a person commits a crime against unspecified or multiple victims or repeatedly commits a crime for a considerable period of time (the scope of recommending punishment): 2 years and 6 years of imprisonment;

(b) Punishment of embezzlement [Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (Special Convicted Persons): Reduction element: In a case where punishment is not granted or a significant damage is recovered (the scope of recommending punishment): From 10 months to 10 months;

2. In full view of the handling of multiple crimes [Determination of Basic Crimes] / [Disposition] Imprisonment with prison labor from 2 years and 6 months to 6 years (1/2 of the maximum sentence scope of basic crimes) and other factors, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and it is not recognized that the Defendant’s above assertion is unreasonable.

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