2. The lower court determined the sentence by taking account of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is recognized on behalf of the Defendant; (b) the partial performance of damages; (c) the degree of deception was weak; and (d) the equity with the case of the judgment at the same time as the judgment became final and conclusive; and (c) the fact that most damages have not been recovered at the same time; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime.

Even when considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the punishment within a reasonable scope, sufficiently taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing.

In particular, the Defendant asserts that it is difficult to implement the community service order on the grounds of health, on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing. However, considering various sentencing conditions, the lower court appears to have sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence on the premise that the performance of the community service order is difficult, and it is difficult to recognize that there are special circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court on the sole basis of the grounds alleged by the Defendant. There is no change in circumstances

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.