The punishment prescribed by the court of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examining the instant case based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable and acceptable that the court of the original instance found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, including Paragraph 4, as stated in its reasoning.

We cannot accept the allegation that there is a mistake of facts affecting the judgment of the court below.

The defendant's liability is not against the defendant's wrongful argument of sentencing.

There are several criminal records.

A person who has been punished twice by a fine for the same kind of crime but has been sentenced to six months of imprisonment for the same crime. A person who has been sentenced to a repeated crime of this case, which is similar only five days after the person was sentenced to imprisonment, is a repeated crime.

The violation of the rule has been repeated several times within the old rule.

The court of the court below rendered the sentence against the defendant by taking account of the aforementioned various positive and negative circumstances.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing as a result of the sentence.

In addition, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is not deemed unfair.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply to litigation costs.