2. In full view of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the fact that the instant case could have been tried simultaneously with the crime for which a judgment became final and conclusive, or that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being punished for the same kind of crime, the damage caused by the instant crime was not fully recovered, the fact that there is no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and other circumstances that form the conditions of the pleadings and the sentencing indicated in the records, such as the amount of damage, character and behavior of the Defendant, character and environment of the Defendant, motive and means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the application of the lower judgment, Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) concerning detention in a workhouse is clear that the term “Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act” is a clerical error in the “Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, so it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article