2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant’s time when committing the instant crime was committed in the first instance, and reflects on the fact that it appears that the personal benefits derived from the instant crime could not be much significant.

B. However, even though the crime of this case was committed in collusion with the head of the village and was not capable of preparing the self-charges in the village, the crime of this case is not deemed to be unfair because the crime of this case was committed in light of the following: (a) the document was prepared as if it had the ability to bear the self-charge; (b) the amount of the subsidies obtained by the victim was submitted to create false documents without a significant amount of the subsidies; (c) there was no record of criminal punishment several times due to the same fraud crimes; (d) there was no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered for the defendant after the judgment of the court below after the judgment of the court below; and (e) other factors such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case are considered to be too inappropriate.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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