The judgment below

The part of fraud against the victim B in the judgment is reversed.

On the part of the defendant, the victim B.

1. The court below sentenced the victim B to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes. This is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to each part of the other crimes except fraud against victims B in the holding of the court below

A. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for this part, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged by the Defendant in the trial are deemed to have already been determined by the lower court and sufficiently considered.

In addition, even though the defendant was aware of his mistake in the course of the trial, and submitted data on real estate to be provided as security to the victim C, it is difficult to view it as a new normal relationship or change of circumstances that can change the sentence of the court below in light of the criminal contents and methods of the defendant, the background of the crime, the details and degree of compensation, the criminal records of the defendant.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the above sentence imposed by the court below is not hot, since it was done within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Therefore, the defendant's appeal as to each part of the remaining crimes except the crime of fraud against the victim B in the judgment of the court below is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure

(However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, and under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the phrase “as of July 30, 2014” in Part 5 shall be deemed to be “as of July 30, 2015,” and shall be corrected as “as of July 30, 2015.”

A. The lower court’s judgment is that the Defendant.