However, the defense counsel clearly stated that the appeal does not dispute any longer about fraud in the statement of reasons for appeal (as the reasons for appeal No. 5) and argued only the improper point of sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the Defendant refused a victim’s request to pay cash and did not pay a picture (Evidence No. 15 of the Evidence Records) even though it is possible to withdraw a deposit with a physical card that has already settled the user fee of a lodging establishment. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she had expressed in the prosecutor’s office that he/she had expressed his/her intent or ability to pay the picture (Evidence No. 65 of the Evidence Records). Ultimately, even if there was a balance in the Defendant’s deposit account, such mistake did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, as such mistake did not affect the Defendant’s judgment, and the Defendant and his/her defense counsel did not assert it on the ground of mistake of facts, and thus, it shall not be determined as to the above assertion.

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours community service and 80 hours lecture order) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant is recognized and against whom the instant crime is committed, the victim and his parents agree with the Defendant, and the Defendant.