Therefore, the defendant's mistake is recognized as the crime of this case, the defendant is living together with his mother in a state where he has not been economically enough, and there is no power to commit the crime exceeding the fine of the defendant, and there is no power to commit the same kind of crime, and there is no other extenuating circumstance for the defendant.

However, in light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, it is deemed that the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances, which form the conditions for the oral argument and the sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, are considered unreasonable. In so doing, the lower court determined the punishment in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and there was no special change in the circumstances or circumstances that may be considered newly after the sentence of the lower judgment, and there is no change in the sentencing. In full view of all the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., all of the circumstances that the Defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment should be reversed to the extent that the Defendant’s punishment should be reversed.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.