2. The judgment of the court below: (a) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the influence of alcohol due to a prolonged period of time; (b) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol because he was under the influence of alcohol because he was under the influence of alcohol due to a prolonged period of time; and (c) the amount of damage in this case is a relatively small amount; (d) although each of the crimes of this case was committed in this case, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not very good; (f) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on May 15, 2013 due to habitual fraud on or before the execution of the sentence was completed; (f) the Defendant was under the influence of punishment several times prior to the completion of the sentence on September 24, 2013; (f) the Defendant was under the influence of having been under the influence of making it difficult to maintain his livelihood; (f) the amount of damage in this case was a relatively small amount of damage; (f) the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant’s punishment before and after the sentence was sentenced to the victim’s occupation or circumstances.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for conclusion.

However, the lower court’s judgment’s 4th page 10-1: Inasmuch as it is apparent that “the fact is a clerical error, such as a criminal investigation report, a repeated crime, etc., of the 2014 Highest April 467 case,” it is added ex officio to the 3th page 15 of the same judgment pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules