2. Even though there are circumstances to consider the Defendant’s attempt to commit the instant crime, it is reasonable to impose a severe punishment on the Defendant, considering the following: (a) the Defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime by forging the resident registration certificate which is an official document and using it for a crime; (b) the amount of fraud is bad; (c) the Defendant did not agree with the victim and did not recover any damage; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime by using it between the victim and the deceased; (c) the Defendant was punished for the same type of crime; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution; and (e) the victim was sufficiently punished by the Defendant up to the appellate trial.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, there is no special change in circumstances that make the sentence different from the original judgment, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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