2. It is recognized that the circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and that property damage caused by the instant crime is not significant, and that the Defendant does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim, but it seems that this was already considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant without the intent or ability to pay the food value of KRW 39,00 in a restaurant operated by the victim. It cannot be deemed that the criminal liability is less than that of the Defendant. The criminal liability of the Defendant is a crime of fraud under the same law, two times the criminal punishment of the Defendant, and one time the suspended sentence of imprisonment was sentenced to imprisonment. In particular, the Defendant committed the crime of this case since six months have not passed since he was released without being aware of it even though he was a repeated crime due to the same crime. In light of the criminal records, the Defendant’s awareness of compliance is rare and high risk of recidivism, the equity in sentencing and punishment with the same and similar incidents, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.