The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The sentence (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant agreed with the victim E in the original judgment that the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes as stated in the first head of the original judgment and the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act. It is recognized that it is necessary to consider equity in the case where each of the crimes of this case and each of the crimes for which the judgment has become final and conclusive in accordance with Article 39

However, the nature of the crime is heavy in light of the method of committing the crime in this case, the number of victims, and the amount of damage.

In the past, the Defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a crime of fraud and has been punished three times due to a crime of fraud, and even though there has been a history of punishment for a crime of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, each of the crimes of this case has been committed.

Before the trial, the Defendant did not agree with the victims except E.

There is no special circumstance that differs from the original judgment in the first instance.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the instant case, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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