The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The fact that the Defendant appears to have recognized all of the crimes of this case, and that it appears that the family environment is poor and economically difficult, which affected the crime of this case, can be considered in the sentencing of this case.

However, the crime of this case is a type of crime by deceiving many victims as if they were selling valuable goods through online transaction sites. The crime of this type of fraud is basically a crime that may seriously damage the foundation of online trade order where the transaction is conducted based on mutual trust between the parties, and there is a need to be punished strictly, in consideration of its social rippleity, crime was committed within a short period, damage areas are extensive, and a considerable number of crimes are crimes are committed against students or the first generation of society who lack economic ability. In particular, in light of the frequency and period of such crime, damage objects, and criminal law, the crime is committed by deceiving victims who have paid considerable attention to the suspicion of fraud, and it is extremely poor in quality in light of the number of crimes, damage objects, and criminal law, and the crime of this case is committed by deceiving them as if they had real property, and the crime of this case is committed by taking into account the following circumstances: imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime is considerably identical to imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years, and even if the amount acquired by deception seems to have been used as illegal soil and sports funds.