2. The judgment below held that the defendant abused the defendant's new space of the church, which can be considered as a place of crime and its surroundings, (1) committed the crime of this case, (2) committed the crime of this case in favor of the defendant, (3) committed the crime of this case, (3) committed the crime of this case in favor of him, (40 million won or more, and (4)0,000 won or more, (1 million won or more, and sound equipment), (4)0,000 won or more, (1 million won or more), (2) committed the crime of this case in favor of him, (3) committed the crime of this case, (4) the defendant paid 3 million won or more to his victim, and (4) more, (3) the defendant was aware of the crime of this case, (4) more widely, and (4) the defendant was punished, and (3) the defendant's family relation, and (4) the defendant's family relation guidelines have yet to be punished, and (4) the defendant's family relation guidelines were decided within the defendant's age of this case.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in this court have already been considered in determining the punishment at the lower court, and there are no other special changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court. Therefore, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.