2. The following facts are considered: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime, i.e., the Defendant’s mistake late and late, and ii) the Defendant agreed to; (b) the Defendant made a false report in order to prevent the Defendant from having defaulted on the check normally issued; (c) the instant crime was committed; (d) the Defendant was immediately discovered that the instant crime was committed; and (e) the Defendant was not the cause for the instant check; and thus, (e) the Defendant cannot be considered as a factor for sentencing favorable to the agreement with the recipient; and (e) the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if having already been punished for two times due to the same type of crime, even if having already been punished for the instant crime, the Defendant had committed the instant crime; (c) the Defendant had a large number of records of punishment by suspension of execution and fine; and (d) the Defendant did not clearly have any apparent circumstances prior to the opening of the check.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.