2. Although each of the crimes of this case committed in favor of the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects, each of the crimes of this case was committed by the Defendant with a large number of money, and that the Defendant forged and used his signature in order to conceal the details of his multiple times during the police investigation process. Considering the fact that the nature of the crime was considerably poor in light of the background, method, etc. of the crime, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, background, method of the crime, relationship with the victim, and circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 239(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 239(2) of the Criminal Act) and Article 239(2) of the Criminal Act (Article 239(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 239(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act), and each of the imprisonment penalties;

B. Article 246 (Gambling) of the Criminal Act; “Selection of a fine” is apparent that it is a clerical error in the context of “Article 246 (Gambling) of the Criminal Act; Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of gambling) and Article 239 (2) and Article 239 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of signing the above investigation).” During the fourth and fifth conducts, the term “1. commercial concurrence; Articles 40 and 50 (the crime of signing the above investigation) of the Criminal Act;

1. Inasmuch as it is apparent that “the choice of a fine for a crime of choice of punishment or gambling” was omitted, rectification and addition ex officio is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.