2. The Defendant: (a) led to the confession of all the instant crimes; and (b) took depth of his mistake; and (c) had the victim install toilets outside the commercial building owned by the Defendant as if the Defendant paid the construction cost to the victim; and (b) there seems to have been no benefit accrued therefrom.

However, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine twice for the same crime for the last ten years, and was sentenced to a punishment twice for the crime of this case, and did not agree with the victim even though the victim had suffered a loss equivalent to eight million won due to the crime of this case, until the time of the trial.

In light of these circumstances, given the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, environment, means and consequence, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is adequate and too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, 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. It is so decided as per