(M) In addition, the lower court’s punishment (2 million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by integrating the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the grounds of detailed reasons.

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and the above argument by

B. In full view of the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, including the fact that there was no criminal record of the same kind as the instant crime, and the Defendant’s false lien report thereby undermining the fairness of auction, and the background, method, result, etc. of the instant crime, which practically causes losses to the creditors, the nature of the instant crime is not good; the Defendant’s continued refusal of the crime; and other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

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

Pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the second part of the judgment of the court below shall be the 17th.