The sentencing of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes; and (b) the Defendant did not have any specific criminal records other than twice the past record of a fine for dual species; (c) the Defendant did not fully pay the amount of damage to the victim until the Defendant was in the trial; (d) the Defendant did not fully pay the amount of damage to the victim; (e) the equity between the same similar case and the sentencing; (e) the motive and circumstances leading up to the instant crime; (e) the motive and circumstance leading up to the instant crime; (e) the circumstances after the instant crime; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment; and (e) the sentencing conditions specified in the instant

(2) The defendant asserts that he had the intent to repay at the time of the loan only after the lapse of 20 days from the date of the notice of receipt of records and after the closure of pleadings. However, according to the records, the defendant's assertion that he had the intent to submit the statement of grounds for appeal, but he had the obligation equivalent to 34 million won at the time of the loan. Since it is recognized that the defendant used the victim's personal obligation, living expenses, etc., the defendant's above assertion is without merit. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is not reasonable to deem that he had the ability or intent to repay.