2. Determination

A. The appellate court should respect the judgment of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to a summary order of KRW 2 million on June 15, 2017 for the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of private documents on the ground that the Defendant committed the crime of forging private documents (hereinafter “the crime of forging private documents”), and the crime of forging private documents on the part of 2016, and sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million on March 7, 2017 for the crime of forging private documents, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on March 7, 2017, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the crime of embezzlement on the part of several months after the above summary order and judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, committed the crime of forging private documents and occupational embezzlement in the same law; the damage amount of the crime of embezzlement and occupational embezzlement in the judgment did not amount to KRW 32,700,000,000 in total; the victim has yet to recover the above damage; accordingly, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character, character, circumstances, circumstances, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime.

C. The grounds for unfair sentencing (i.e., confession, radius, etc.) alleged by the Defendant appears to be the circumstances in which the lower court already considered in determining the Defendant’s punishment; there are no circumstances to deem that the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the trial; and considering the above sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.