The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (three months of imprisonment and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a net manner and committed the instant crime in depth.

In addition, the Defendant deposited KRW 1 million in addition to the payment of medical expenses, etc. to the victim of the crime of traffic accident through automobile insurance in addition to the payment of medical expenses, etc., and paid all the amount of damage to the victims of the so-called so-called "Jara" fraud, and the victim of the larceny expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant.

Furthermore, it does not seem that the extent of the profits earned by the defendant and the degree of damage suffered by the victims through each of the above crimes reaches a serious level.

In addition, the Defendant’s act of fraud on November 20, 208 should be considered in relation to the relation between fraud, etc. finalized on April 21, 2010 and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the principle of equity with the case to be judged should be considered in light of the circumstances that should be considered in favor of the Defendant in the course of the determination of the punishment against the instant crime.

However, even though the defendant thought that he would use the money for personal purposes, such as the purchase price of a vehicle, around November 2008, the crime of this case was committed by acquiring approximately KRW 3,1380,000 from the victim C who was a school shop in the name of the business fund, and acquired it by defrauding it, causing a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle without a driver's license while driving the motor vehicle after a designated and distributed it, and attempted to flee after causing a traffic accident. The so-called "Jara" fraud, by acquiring approximately 3,860,000 won by fraud, and immediately hiring the victim as an employee of the Moel, 2,120,000 won in cash of the victim who was the Moel business owner, is not

In addition, the defendant has the above victim C obtain a loan from private financial rights.