2. The Defendant, who recognized all of the instant crimes, is against the Defendant.

The defendant's monetary forgery crime is not professional, and the amount of damage is relatively small even in the case of larceny and fraud.

Some victims of fraud do not want to punish the defendant, and the defendant does not want to punish the defendant under the agreement with the victim AC in this court.

However, the crime of forging or gambling in a currency that the defendant committed is a serious crime that undermines the safety of transaction, and such crime is not less complicated than that of committing multiple property crimes in a short period that does not reach the two months.

In addition, the Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment due to the night room theft, etc. on April 21, 2017, committed a compliance consciousness or an attempt to prevent recidivism, such as committing a violation of law by night room intrusion larceny, before and after the execution of the punishment was completed on April 21, 2017.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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 groundless.